Wednesday, February 08, 2006

The Fear of the Press

The Fear of the Press

Canadians saw much of the politics of fear in our last federal election, and MSM was happy to oblige the parties with buying in to much of what was presented as “fact.” What is interesting to me in the so-called Cartoon Riots, is the fear of the press in the face of Islam. The irony is shocking.
BBC News will not print pictures of the cartoons even though reputed to be an unbiased presenter of world events. They tippy-toe around written descriptions and do not link to outside sites that contain the images.
Clearly it is not out of respect for Mohammed. A quick read of their explanation will make that evident. The only reason they do not show the images is fear. Fear of backlash against those associated with the BBC throughout the world, and for the grand old GB herself.
My point: fear is power.
And that power is exposing the true agenda of most MSM – survival! There is no unbiased, commitment to get at the truth of these events. Just fear.
That is why Christians, in my estimation, will continue to suffer around the world, both physically and emotionally – because they will not resort to power by inducing fear. Why not? Because we fear one far greater than TimeWarner Inc. or the BBC or CTVNews or the National Post. We fear the One who directs the hearts of world leaders like they were water in a little stream carved out by His finger.
Truth is only safe with those who do not fear the world and death.


  1. In the Windsor Star on the weekend they showed a picture from the Britain protest. The problem with the picture was that it was of a Muslim protester holding a sign that merely said, "Shame on you."
    Of all of the signs that they could have chosen from, they decided on that! Why not any of the terror insighting signs threatening to behead any who insult Islam?
    You are dead right about the fear of the BBC, or The Toronto Star, or any of the other outlets of MSM.
    I do have to give props to The National Post for publishing cartoons, drawn by Muslims, depicting Ariel Sharon as a Nazi killing Palestinians, etc. I was shocked (in a good way) to see those in a Canadian paper!

  2. Ian:

    Perhaps I don't understand your comments but here goes.

    I don't think I'm a Zionist ( boy, that's a loaded term ) but I fail to see how publishing Islamic cartoons of "Nazi" Sharon killing Palestinians is good for anything. Is that freedom of the press, freedom from fear, the ability and willingness to publish any sort of crap that someone will find offensive?

    How am I acting as salt/light in this unbelieving world if I purposefully offend unbelievers ( other than via the gospel ) ?

    I really wonder why Christians are getting their shorts in a knot over this. Isn't this what Jesus said would happen? Of course the forces of this world, be they rulers, newspaper editors etc.. will display a bias toward anything unChristian.

    And, quite frankly, while freedom of the press might be wonderful, the powers that be in the BBC or wherever, have to be idiots to lose their lives ( or the lives of their employees ) by insisting on exercising this holy grail of freedom for its own sake, by unnecessarily publishing something they KNOW will incite hate/wrath etc..

    It's even more unnecessary from a Christian perspective. Does it really matter in the context of the extension of the kingdom of God?

  3. One thing regarding Kerux's last statement: "Truth is only safe with those who do not fear the world and death."

    Doesn't that lack of fear also apply to the Muslim fanatics who wrap themselves in explosives and willingly launch themselves into eternity?

  4. Most Odious,
    It may surprise you that I agree with almost everything you wrote (it surprises me!), but I think you fail to grasp the major point of my post. Most likely you fail to grasp that since it wasn't very clear!
    That point: Neutrality is a mirage within the MSM.
    I am not for a second suggesting that printing these offensive images is in and of itself a good thing. I am trying to point out that it is hyper-hypocritical to publish glowing stories and photo's of that which is offensive to Christians while not printing that which is offensive to Muslims. And that the foundation of that decision is fear on the part of the decsion-makers.
    As for your last comment - you draw a false comparison.
    I am speaking about True Truth. A Muslim fanatic who blows himself up is dying for a lie. (So, I dont' agree with that part!)

  5. MSM = main stream media?

    Of course neutralilty isn't found in the MSM, of course it's hyper-hypocritical. it's a servant of the prince of darkness! Hence my "shorts in a knot" comment. Perhaps you were knowingly stating the obvious in your original post and I concluded ( ungraciously ) that you thought you were on to something novel.

    Certainly the Muslim fanatic dies for a lie, but he's utterly convinced it's the truth and as a result is fearless. So is it the truth that makes the ultimate difference or the perception of what that truth is? It certainly underlines the urgent necessity of Christians speaking the True Truth in love so those around us will not die believing a lie.

  6. Odious: I do believe that it can be appropriate to post something offensive if it is pointing to a greater reality that is even more offensive. For example, I think that seeing a picture of a mutilated baby is offensive, but when it is on a sign that says "Abortion is Murder," I realise that the offensive picture is pointing to something much more offensive - abortion. So when the Post published those cartoons, which were offensive, they were pointing to the greater reality of the offensiveness of the Muslim cartoonists and their cartoons. It also points to the utter hypocrisy of said Muslims who are in an outrage over cartoons of Mohammed, yet think it's okay to to cartoons of their own. If I were Jewish, and saw those cartoons in the Post, I would feel vindicated that a western paper is pointing out Muslim hypocrisy.

    You are right, we as Christians don't want to be offensive in our personalities. If a person is offended by anything, it should be the gospel. But there are times when someone will be offended by a viewpoint that I hold to (a socialist may be offended by my capitalism), and that sometimes can't be helped. Again, using the abortion illustration. I used to carry around a picture of a shredded foetus in my wallet. In conversations about abortion, if it got heated, I'd pull the pic as a trump card and ask, "you support this??" It's offensive, but again it points to the greater offensiveness of abortion. Just as the Post publishing those cartoons can be seen as offensive, which some may believe, they are pointing to the greater offensiveness of the Islamic cartoonists' cartoons.
    You are right when you say that we as Christians need to choose our battles and try as best as possible to not be offensive. Yet there are times to be offensive, just as Christ was when calling Herod a "fox," when he called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers," or when he cleansed the temple.
    Similarly, the Post's cartoons are pointing out, in great force, the inconsistency of the Muslim cartoonists. And I think they made their point effectively.

    By pointing out the western world's hypocritical reaction to these cartoons we are pointing to the inherent inconsistency of their unbelieving worldview. It is a part of the overall apologetic that says, "only the Christian worldview is consistent."

    I think that if the BBC had the guts to publish those cartoons (or at least the terror insighting signs the Muslim protestors held), they would reveal to the people of England the utter violence and corruption of the Islamic religion. Instead of saying that Islam is a religion of peace, they could openly demonstrate that Islam is violent and is a global threat. The cartoon issue speaks to a greater problem both with Islam and with the pomo-west.

    I believe that it matters greatly in the context of the kingdom. As kingdom dwellers, we are pointing out the utter un-livability of the other kingdom. As unbeliever's they will constantly have to deal with their inconsistency.
    By showing the violence of the so-called "religion of peace" we can demonstrate that only in Christ is real peace found. By proving that Islam is violent, we can also show that Christ is the source of true peace.

    Also, this will be the only response I give to you "odious herodias." As much as I believe that western newspapers' failing to accurately report on the riots is cowardly, so too do I believe that anonymous posting is cowardly. So until you provide your name, I won't respond.

  7. Do you think that as a result of the decision to run the cartoons, peace has been achieved? Is the average Muslim more, or less, open to hearing the gospel?

    I'm not convinced that any good whatsoever has come from it. Only that a wedge has been driven deeper between us and our mission field. It seems to me there was a high road and a low road. Guess which one is home to the traffic jam.