Accuracy in Media

Recently, the media – hell-bent on demonstrating seriousness about factual reporting – took on issues deemed sufficiently important so as to demand further research.

What were they?

During a March 28 press briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer suggested the media were so focused on connecting Donald Trump to the Russians, “If the President puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that’s a Russia connection.” CNN frantically researched whether Russian salad dressing is, in fact, really Russian.

As CNN reported the dressing originated in Nashua, New Hampshire, we can all rest easier now knowing that limitless quantities of it can be consumed without somehow endangering national security.

In January, following Meryl Streep’s Golden Globe’s acceptance speech attacking Trump, he tweeted she is “one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood.” The Associated Press, treasuring Streep as a national asset, decided to research this. It published an article listing her achievements, explaining it disagreed with Trump’s assessment.

Again, we were able to rest easy, knowing the media had done their job concerning an issue they must have considered fraught with national security implications, lest they would not waste time and resources on it.

But on the issue of Islam, independent media research to help explain if it truly poses a threat to national security seems to be taboo. While the media may quote experts on both sides, they do far more to portray Islam as peaceful, suggesting opponents focusing on facts and citing chapter and verse are somehow Islamophobic for doing so.

Disturbing too are media reports doctoring factual realities, such as the denial Islamic “no-go” zones exist in the West.

In November 2015, Trump was asked whether Islam is inherently dangerous. He made a most telling observation, noting “something (is) going on” within the religion.

Islam is complex to understand. For example, it teaches that the Quran represents perfection, for the words therein are Allah’s and, therefore, not open to man’s interpretation. Yet it contains many contrary verses, causing scholars to apply the rule of abrogation – giving the later, and oftentimes more intolerant, verse priority.

Accordingly, the media’s non-scholars choose to seek out experts to simplify the ideological explanation. The drawback is, by doing so, the media tend to inject their own, heavily liberal biases into a debate it neglects to research.

It would be interesting to know, for example, how many media members supporting Islam have actually read the Quran to obtain a foundational understanding warranting their support. It would be interesting to know too how many are aware that Islam allows Muslims to lie about their religion to advance its agenda; or that Islam’s declared goal is to spread the religion by force if necessary and by executing non-believers where opposed; or that Muslim states have rejected a United Nations universal declaration of equality for all human life in favor of one limiting it only to human life recognized under Shariah – i.e., Muslims – so Shariah is for Muslims what the KKK is for white supremacists; or that Islamic doctrine is 61 percent political ideology, targeted against non-Muslim “infidels”; or that, while biblical violence is historic, the Quran’s is perpetual; etc.

A recent example of heavy-handed liberal media failing to independently research Islam while claiming that one who did, thereby expressing his concerns, is Islamophobic, is Frank Gaffney.

Gaffney is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy – the mission of which is to address challenges likely to affect American security. He has researched and written extensively about the Islam/Shariah threat.

Gaffney has made every effort to educate the media on the religion’s realities. He explains Shariah, in the end, is not about faith but power. It is a system of laws entitling the faithful “to brutalize women and otherwise treat them as property, murder homosexuals and kill Jews, apostates, females accused of adultery and anyone who ‘defames’ Islam.”

While Gaffney is thankful all Muslims do not practice their faith according to Shariah, it is, nonetheless, a supremacist ideology that for 1400 years has mandated submission to it by every living soul on Planet Earth.

What Gaffney cites to the media as factual it dismisses as Islamophobic rantings without providing any substantive response to the facts presented about Islam. Gaffney writes how this ideology now influences our schools and universities. His concern is justified, evidenced last month by a ghastly example of Islam’s negative influence in one school that should have generated a media shockwave over what occurred.

Marshall Polston, a student at Rollins College was suspended for questioning comments made in his Middle Eastern & Muslim Humanities class. Polston objected to a Muslim student’s statement Shariah should be followed to the letter and, whatever punishments were demanded, whether for homosexuality or theft, were justified. Polston also objected to a statement by his professor, Areej Zufari, that the Crucifixion of Christ was really just a hoax and his disciples did not believe he was “divine.”

When Polston – a straight “A” student – sought an explanation, Zufari reported him for making her feel “unsafe.”

Imagine a liberal media’s outcry had this student asserted Prophet Muhammad was a charlatan. Yet, Zufari makes an outlandish assertion about Christ and is able to manipulate a student’s dismissal for challenging her own politically incorrect statement – an action met with deafening silence from the media. (Polston has since been reinstated.)

Most disconcerting is Zufari’s past, which includes allegations of radicalizing children, fundraising for someone connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and defending hate statements such as “Death to all Jews.” Additionally, she is on the FBI’s watch list and now also stands accused of filing a false police report against Polston.

In 1938, the FDA required inherently dangerous products have warning labels. While labels were not attached to cigarettes until 1965, the health threat so concerned the international community that most nations required their immediate attachment. Some warnings were lengthy; others, such as Albania’s, simply read “Smoking kills.”

Responsible journalists independently researching the religion will learn the same can be true about Islam.

A version of this piece also appeared on    

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


Comments are turned off for this article.