plagiarized and editorialized

i've been trying while away to have some source of influence in political debates and political media back home, particularly when i found out about the anti-Islamic documentary Obsession inserted as a paid advertisement in 28 million swing-state newspapers (the documentary and the fear-mongering tactic has been used before. Fox "news" ran the film 9 times in 2 weeks just before the 2006 mid-term elections). the DVD's mass distribution, which has been denounced by leaders from all major religious, was paid for by Clarion Fund, an organization backing John McCain.

i first wrote a review of the documentary (see no. 2 kuebribd) on the New York Times website shortly after the film's mass distribution.*

then, The Dayton Daily News distributed the DVD and just a week later Muslim visitors of a Dayton mosque were attacked with a chemical spray while praying. this prompted me, with the pushing of a good friend, to write a more extensive letter to The Miami Student and The Dayton Daily News.

The Miami Student, perhaps the most conservative student newspaper in the world (and i'm not trying to exaggerate), published my letter in full but changed the title from "Documentary Advertisement Spreads Religious Hatred" to "Anti-West aggression should not be overlooked." if you read the letter, you will see that the new title is almost contradictory to the message.

i'm not sure whether the editorial board at The Miami Student has poor comprehension skills or if they editorialized my title, something they have done with my letters before, in an attempt to distort the message. perhaps they meant to write, Anti-West aggression should be reconsidered, or examined thoroughly and rationally. or that Anti-Islamic aggression should not be overlooked, choices which would come closer to the intended message of the letter. but with their new title, one might infer that the attack against a Dayton mosque was carried out by a Muslim instead of two impressionable teenagers who just watched the racist DVD they got with their Dayton Daily newspaper, a DVD that filled them with irrational fear and hatred against Muslims before encouraging them to "take a stand" (my inference on the catalyst of the attack).

-----

technically, my letter to the Dayton Daily News was not published, but when reading what was published on the editorial page, i found two paragraphs i recognized.

Dore Procopio of Dayton "wrote":
"What a horrible fear-mongering, brainless, guns-waving approach to the Middle East and Islam. It is being distributed in swing states as part of an anti-Islamic and pro-Republican ad campaign. Too bad the DDN couldn't resist the payoff.

If we wanted to get at the heart of the terrorist threat, we could start by looking at the oppression of the people in the Middle East. It's no coincidence that the poorest countries with histories of colonization and intervention lash out against the West."

Dore found my New York Times review, switched out "DDN" for "nytimes" and modified the opening phrase, but left the rest untouched. i was a bit shocked, as an English teacher seeing my writing plagiarized, but am actually flattered that someone thought my message was worth copying and distributing (my actual letter to the editor was a bit more thoughtful, but i guess the DDN disagreed). i also found out that, despite her challenges with originality, i kind of like Dore, who is a librarian (of all people you should know better!) and also an activist (here holding a "shame" sign for Ann Coulter). the NYtimes comments also showed up on a blog about conservative media bias, this time without someone stealing authorship.

-----

apologies for the long post with its links and bifurcations and which may seem to have little to do with Turkey. but the issue i was writing about hit home (my new home) as i owe my comfort and safety here to the many Muslims who have been warm, understanding, and hospitable, despite the many abuses to their religion, culture, and people from my country's government and media.

i also don't intend to be self promoting, here or in other posts (it's hard because the medium pushes me there), but i wanted to give a glimpse of how 15 minutes of bad writing spread to a few outlets in the U.S. media, even if it had to be plagiarized and distorted to make it there.

*Final note: i don't know exactly what i meant by "would have caused popular uprising in a just society," as i wrote the nytimes review quickly not thinking it would show up elsewhere. i think that another letter to the DDN said what i was thinking best: "I wonder if the DDN would also tout the First Amendment to allow a paying advertiser to distribute a [hate-filled]DVD about other groups such as Jews, blacks, etc.? I find it highly unlikely that the DDN would be waving the First Amendment banner in those cases" (Miller. "DDN should have looked into sources of information." Dayton Daily News, Oct. 2, 2008). or maybe this is what i think i wanted to write: our recent history and socialization has made it difficult for us to treat racist and prejudiced misrepresentations of Islam in the way we would treat the same misrepresentation of other ethnic or religious groups, even in such extreme examples as Obsession.