Kralizec on February 11, 2007 at 5:27 PM

I agree, it seems entirely possible that in the first quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali was being blamed for causing discontent within the American Muslim community. It isn’t PC to say the Muslims are anything but happy productive members of society so the second quote totally reverses the meaning and gives it a liberal spin that the public at large is discontent with the Muslims. Reading the first quote in that way fits in exactly with what some of the Imams said about uncovered meat or what Robert Spencer said about the Koran not teaching self restraint.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

“It is unfortunate that she had to bring that kind of hate from Europe to the United States”

There that should be more accurate. Maybe add “To open their eyes”.

This is a marked woman. The next martyr in America. She needs protection before some jihadist kills her like they did Theo Van Gogh.

Absolutely barbaric.

Maybe I’ve just overlooked it, but I haven’t seen any remark, in either the blog post or the comments, on the ambiguous meaning of the phrase “Muslim hatred” in the first version. A reader can easily doubt whether the hatred is Muslims’ hatred or hatred of Muslims. I suspect that ambiguity was the impetus to make any change at all; however, if the intended meaning was “hatred of Muslims,” then an editorial clarification such as “[anti-]Muslim hatred” would have been adequate. Instead, it appears that mere clarification became an occasion for wholesale substitution with mush.

Kralizec on February 11, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Good point. Why does this make me chuckle? I liked it better the first way.

and when it comes to the matter of disinformation in the media (all media), you are surprised how???????????

Emmett J. on February 11, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Wow, you have exactly one “contribution” to make, don’t you, Emmett J.? Get a new thought.

While CAIR’s attack on Hirsi Ali was bad enough as it was, it’s also bad that the AP is trying to sanitize what they said…

To: (various)

A discrepancy has been noted in an article written about Ayaan Hirsi Ali by William C. Mann.

Mr. Mann’s article appeared in numerous online publications. Most carried the article written as yours was written, but a few carried it with a variation in a quote by Ibrahim Hooper of C.A.I.R. We are trying to ascertain which quote is correct.

The article appeared on (various)’s website here:

(website url)

At 10:14 a.m., the same article moved on the wire and Yahoo posted it here with the quote you used in your version:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_re_us/islam_critic_2

In your article (as well as many others, including the above at Yahoo), Mr. Hooper is quoted as saying,

“We believe that she will bring an increase to the level of anti-Muslim bias in this country that we saw her bring to the situation in Europe,” the council’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, said in an interview Saturday. “Unfortunately her message is one of bigotry, not one of mutual understanding.”

In a Yahoo article, which moved on the wire earlier, at 2:05 a.m.,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_re_us/islam_critic_1

Mr. Hooper’s quote reads differently:

“”We believe that contributes to a growing level of Muslim hatred in America,” said the council’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper. “It is unfortunate that she had to bring that kind of hate from Europe to the United States.”"

We are trying to determine who (at Associated Press) is responsible for changing the text of Mr. Hooper’s quote. It is important to know which quote is the correct one and why the quote was altered. (i.e., does Ibrahim Hooper or the C.A.I.R. organization carry an undue amount of influence with the Associated Press)? Or did Mr. Mann publish twice, and if so, why did he change the text of the quote?

Any light you could shine on this investigation would be appreciated.

Sincerely, (me)

end email inquiry

Since it is almost impossible now to completely remove previous quotes, statements, or public postings from the Internet this is a futile attempt. Any attempt to rewrite a post can cause a larger controversy than the original as the rewrite will be noticed and discussed more that the original posting.

This is a perfect example of the media eclipsing the message. I always thought that was to be avoided by journalists? It seems that journalists has a lot to learn concerning the Internet.

After reading Robert Spencer’s book “The Truth about Muhammad” their actions make perfect sense. The Muslim cannot be trusted, they use deception and deceit on a regular basis in any dealings with the “infidel”.

There must be a way to counter any actions by CAIR, in their face, on every issue, at every time, and not give an inch. That is the only tactic that will work with the Islamofacist.

As for who “brought the hatred” of Muslims to the United States, I think that was the 19 evil hijackers on September 11, not Hirsi Ali.

And second, if not, is giving sources a do-over on quotes after a story’s been published standard practice in the industry?

It probably depends on who it is. CAIR, global warming alarmists, in a minute. Rush Limbaugh, Tony Snow, not even if they said what they said from the pain of being on fire.

If that were the case Allah, shouldn’t the fact that Hooper had buyer’s remorse be part of Mann’s story?

oakpack on February 11, 2007 at 11:00 AM

And risk offending such a good friend of the MSM as CAIR? Are you kidding?

I am reminded of Senators stating before a speech in the well of the senate “I reserve the right to REVISE and extend my comments.”
Have any of you ever wondered about that?

Babs on February 11, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Under what authority are they granted the ‘right’ to say they can lie about anything they chose and then change what they say?