AP will not distribute 'images or audio' of burning Qurans

Source: The Hill

AP will not distribute 'images or audio' of burning Qurans
By Elise Viebeck - 09/09/10 01:46 PM ET

The Associated Press said Thursday it will not distribute images or audio of the Quran-burning demonstration planned for Saturday evening by a Gainesville, Fla., church.

"Should the event happen on Saturday, the AP will not distribute images or audio that specifically show Qurans being burned, and will not provide detailed text descriptions of the burning," deputy managing editor Thomas Kent wrote in a memo to AP staff. "With the exception of these specific images and descriptions, we expect to cover the Gainesville event, in all media, placing the actions of this group of about 50 people in a clear and balanced context."

The announcement came amid a larger effort by the AP to standardize its coverage of the issue, which has drawn national media attention and opposition from President Obama and other leaders.

The memo noted that the wire service will run "ONE main spot story" on the event and its run-up per day, and emphasized that "at the moment is a proposal by a tiny group that may or may not happen."


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/117891-memo-ap-will-not-distribute-images-or-audio-of-qurans-being-burned-

There are undoubtedly many small town and small minded preachers of congregations not over a few dozen folks who are doing any number of vile things. It is ridiculous that a small church with less than fifty members has attracted worldwide attention and been discussed by world leaders as if this preacher were an important figure.

Pathetic

are not boycotting the 'event'. they are taking responsible steps to prevent bloodshed. Good for them

The people burning holy books are pathetic fools, not murderers. If anybody kills over this (Islamic OR Christian), it is due to their violent religious tendencies. Religious cults have always taunted and provoked each other, while rational people are caught in the crossfire.

If they are willing to kill others because someone burns their worthless book, they are to be condemned for that.

There is plenty of nastiness on both sides. I could care less if someone wants to burn the Koran or the Bible. It means shit to me, and shouldn't mean anything to anyone else, certainly not enough to kill over it. The world over is condemning this act out of fear and nothing else. People are so invested in the meaningless garbage of religion that their insanity causes them to kill someone else.

Sorry, I'm very sensitive about this topic at the moment.

You might not know this but I'm an expat living in Indonesia and I have been warning about Faux broadcasting their dangerous propaganda war on Islam live all over the world here: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8976871

That statement in those large caps made me want to throw up, as you might understand.

one of the most liberal of islamic nations. i think there`s one part of indonesia the is fundy...? i hope they understand this is not what the majority of americans want to happen.

Aceh has had problems with extremists but they are a tiny minority.

This map is a really good visual tool to help people understand what Indonesia is like...



More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indonesia

It remains to be seen how this pans out. I don't think any of my family or friends will be visiting in the near future, unfortunately.

Thanks for posting it.


I never knew that apart from Bali, Central kalimantan also had a Hindu enclave leftover from the ancient times.

A Canadian political writer, has pointed out that what we think of as the problem with Islam is really a problem with Arabic Islam, primarily based on politics. I doubt there is a large amoung of anti-semitism, for example, in Indonesia.

bag and I disagree with this decision by the AP.

And I'm glad they've made this sensible decision.

But now that it's news, I think it's odd that a news organization wouldn't cover it.

It's a wise decision trying to minimize the impact in the best way they can.

And while I understand that photos are more easily grasped, understood, exploited and shared when it comes to news, why write about this but not shoot it? It seems a cop-out to me.

ETA: I saw the information you posted above about where you are living. I can understand that you are looking at this from a very different perspective. Having lived abroad in a difficult country (Russia) during turbulent times (the early 1990s), I know what a vulnerable feeling that is.

That's what the freedom of the press is all about, after all.

Thanks for your understanding in the ETA. I am witnessing this from a very different perspective.

so why should there be any question if they choose to do it now..for perhaps an admirable reason.

If a repuke says it...it is all over the media. If a Democrat says it...it gets lost somewhere between the sound of the voice and the broadcast.
They have been selective on what they show as news for years already.

Look what the media did to Howard Dean...
and what they DIDN'T do to George W.Bush!!!

Would you suggest that they not cover bible burnings, American flag burnings and effigy burnings too? If not, why not? If one is news worthy, why not the other? I see a double standard here.

> Would you suggest that they not cover bible burnings, American flag burnings
> and effigy burnings too?

No, no, probably not (depends on the details).

(Edit: Sorry, I mean "Not cover", "Not cover", "Probably not cover" - I wasn't clear)

> If not, why not?

Giving morons publicity just encourages more out of the woodwork.


> If one is news worthy, why not the other? I see a double standard here.

No double standard - none are newsworthy, all give encouragement to nutters.

Now, questions for you:

Would you suggest that an agency that has frequently exercised its own "right"
to censor information (i.e., choose which items not to publicise) should
be prevented from doing so in this case?

If so, why?

For saving me the time of having to deal with that inane question. :hi:

Today we have media.

a single wacko pastor from a 50 member organization burning books and trying to whip people up into a frenzy really isn't news. It is odd that only one news organization has realized that there are far more important things in the world to which to pay attention.

He wasn't news until the media made him one. The problem with being in the media, though, is that once something is news, it doesn't make sense to try and make it not-news.

The AP will cover the event but not sensationalize, exploit, or give free coverage to those seeking free media coverage.

Though considering that there will be more press than church members there, I doubt it will make much difference.

these days, anybody with a cellphone camera can be, and often is - a journalist.

So, regardless of what the AP chooses to carry, there will be plenty of people on hand to record it, put it on the internet, and effectively broadcast it to the world.

Most news agencies (the NYT etc.) refused to carry the Mohammed cartoons. They were still broadcast all over the net.

The days of a few organizations being the gatekeeper of the media are long gone.

The world has heard and read all about this bigot who is American and his act of hate. They don't understand that even though the rest of us can't stand what this bigot is doing, there is nothing we or the law can do to stop him from exercising his freedom.

We will all be marked by the world because of this one bigot’s actions.

When there is a fatwa issued against editors at any a media outlet that publishes a visual of a burning Koran, AP editors will be able to proudly say: "Not us! We are safe!"

But the Internet does make these small acts of cowardly self-censorship moot, doesn't it.

It is a sensitive and considerate decision.

A cowardly action does not become less so because you agree with it.

It is the same "sensitive" BS that it is used to not report or display the real pictures of both wars.

The job of a journalistic organization is to report, not to self censor itself or add commentary into their reporting. We can't continue making exceptions when the norm becomes not palatable for some, because it becomes a slippery slope... and we have been witnessing that during the past few decades in this country (taken into overdrive during the Bush years). Either we live in an open society with a functioning press which reports reality and its news regardless of wether we may like those news at a personal level, or we do not. In this case it is an absolute, and we can't get to pick and choose based on what it may be personally expedite at that specific point in time.

Has AP ever before made an announcement of that sort before any other major news event?

But AP has self censored itself many times. When was the last time we saw *actual* pictures of Iraqi/Afghani, never mind American casualties in any mainstream news reporting without an actual agenda attached to the reporting? The few times mainstream media has displayed pictures of casualties has been in order to drive or support a specific policy in order to generate the expected emotional response, if that is not propaganda... I don't know what it is. One of the few honest organizations in their reporting of the conflicts has been PBS with their frontline programs. But their audience is rather limited.

Americans have been conditioned into thinking censorship is actually a good think, to the point that in 2010 a News Agency can make a case for self censorship... and people applaud such decision. Not that this society was perfect, and has been a big deal of censorship in our media and journalistic institution for ages. But somehow I was expecting better for the supposedly leading society of the free world in the XXI century.

I know AP has to set various editorial and coverage policies, but what gets me here is that they actually felt the need to publicly announce ahead of time that they would limit their coverage of an important news event. That is quite extraordinary.

What next? A publicly-announced Universal Non-Coverage Protocol so media can avoid being held responsible for the rioting and mayhem and murder we are now expecting from those pious persons angered over a religious insult?

A have a real bad feeling about this, and a sense that this isn't the time for Americas's free press to take a pass on doing their jobs.

... people are not making the connection: if AP is not reporting on this willingly, what else have they neglected to report for "fear" of the consequences of the news?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You want the whole world to see it, fine. I don't want it to get any more publicity than it deserves, which is zero.

Meanwhile, if the rest of the media follow AP lead (sic), they will discredit and weaken themselves and be seen to be afraid to cover this story the same as they would cover any story.

That will sure help public discourse on this a whole lot, won't it, when instead of getting reports from outfits like AP, we'll be relying on pajamasmedia.com to tell what's happening.

The less media coverage this gets outside of America the better off the rest of the world will be.

... but I don't think you really understood that your post sort of proves my point:

You are afraid of the world seeing it (that is a cowardly attitude, check any dictionary if the definition of the term is not known to you), and you are making a case for its censorship based on you personal estimation of the event.

There is this weird entitlement to have it all both ways in this country... we're the freest and bravest people on earth, except when the news may not agree with our sensitivities or interests... in which case we do like an ostrich (which looks ironically like a big chicken).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4534204&mesg_id=4534271

And this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4534090&mesg_id=4534183

And stop calling me a coward. I have good reason to be worried about what is being broadcast out of the states right now and, as I said above, I have stopped giving a fuck about attitudes like yours coming out of the States.

Inflexible political dogma is a dangerous as inflexible religious dogma.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

sensitive and considerate to whom and for what?

You haven't been paying attention.

So explain it to me anyway, then, whether I have been paying attention or not.

The whole point of extremists is to instill fear into their opponents and get them do do what they want, and in this case, it worked.

I'd imagine Qu'rans sound like just about any other book. :silly:

I'm not impressed with their sudden desire to watch from the sidelines.

This whole business is pegging my goofy meter. :silly:

AP knuckles under to threats and intimidation by religious nuts, no film at 11

Sad.

Has AP ever before announced ahead of a major news event that it would limit its reporting of it?

usually they just do it on the sly.

Someone ought to remind them of who they work for and why their organization exists.

... frightening how so many people in this thread have been conditioning into thinking this, censorship when convenient, is actually a good thing.

is how many people went for the bait (attention whore pastor), accepting without argument or discussion that the constant death threats from religious crazies are somehow justified by his acts?

I don't like either side, but of the two sides the one I dislike the more is the one threatening to murder people if they don't get their way.

... the irony is that this pastor, as fucking nuts as he is. He is actually exercising his freedom of speech, a religious book is not more "special" than a flag. And if burning the flag is an act of free speech, so should be burning whatever silly book one disagrees with... be it the Bible, the Quran, or the latest literary terrorist act from Harry Potter or Twilight.

The correct action is not to either forbid this idiot from burning a book, but to tell him to his face what a monumental ignorant douche he is for doing so. And he should not be expected to be killed for doing such an idiotic act, if anything... the guy is deranged and clearly mentally unbalance. But we rather burry our heads in the sand, and pretend everything is fine. Pretend there are no bigots in our country, and continue pretending in this country that our approach to mental health care as a society is so utterly inhuman, sociopathic and shameful that we are reaping what we saw.

YouTube. Jones is probably planning on filming it himself.

would not cover it either.

You'll recall that major US media did not reproduce the cartoons except to show them in pixelated and therefore illegible form.

However, it won't stop individuals from using their own cell phones and cameras. This lunatic doesn't deserve all this attention.

just reported. 5 pm

John Boehner, Sarah Palin, and pastor Terry Jones are now PERMANENTLY LINKED !

If threats keep you from doing what you normally do, then they have won, and in this case, the AP lost. Pathetic.

AP is normally slagged off on DU due to their censorship of events
or reports of left-wing actions but this time, they're getting slagged off
because they censored something that the RW are doing!

:crazy:

(Edited for clarity)

For the first time on Jon Stewart's show I saw the DNC chairman. Where the HELL has this guy been in the last 18 months? Why isn't he on t.v. and radio and in the media constantly selling the Democratic agenda? I have seen that half-wit Steele plenty of times...no wonder the Democrats are flopping when they should be soaring!

But I think the AP is playing it safe. You never know if some other random folks come to Jones's church to burn Qurans. Or others could do copycat events.

I'll bet more people know about Youtube than American Broadcasting Corporation.

I'm surprised ABC released the statement over the Internet. Something like that ought to be on carbon paper!

ahhhh... ABC.

Good luck with that plan. That's like so 1979 of you!

I wonder if ABC remembers the good old days when Networks controlled what media people had access to.

*snicker*

they are not required to cover what they dislike regardless of what we see as good journalism. AP knows this... I prefer media to be neutral but that would take regulating so the media company decides what to and what not to cover, as well as how much or how little. This is nothing new...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Although I think they're pretty pathetic and it's a bad idea. And I think the event should be getting even less publicity than they said they'll be giving it.

But the fact of the matter is, the problem is that there are people in this world who are willing to kill (and apparently die) over the burning of a book. What if some people in another country, who called themselves Muslims, decided to burn some bibles - and some fundamentalist Christians in this country decided to find some way to commit terrorist acts against the entire country in which that bible burning had occurred and any of its citizens who happened to be here in this country as well? And against anyone who called themself a Muslim, regardless of nationality? Who would be more in the wrong, the wrongheaded bible burners or those who chose to react in such a psychotic manner to the burning?

We live in a free country (still, supposedly) and the planned Quran burning is free speech, stupid but free. I don't know what they hope to accomplish by their stupid wrongheaded act, but I know that whatever happens as a result will not be their fault - those who may choose to respond with violence are and should be accountable for their own actions.

If he didn't burn the Qur'ans there wouldn't be any violence. Get it?

So if you piss me off, and then I hit you, it will be your fault that I hit you.

God, this is basic playground stuff here. Hard to believe some people here can't get it.

This should make it easier for you to understand.



I notice you don't refute my assertion that you are an apologist for Jones.

Happy?

Read it again - words I used to describe Jones's planned action:

pathetic
bad idea
should be getting less publicity
wrongheaded
stupid

How does this make me an apologist? I simply said that he's free to do it anyway in this country, and I wouldn't want it any other way. But the people who would be reacting violently to his action are just as responsible for their actions. He's not MAKING them do anything.

Your reasoning is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" - something happens after the fact, therefore it happens because of the fact.

This is a logical fallacy and in this case is clearly not true - the people who would respond to his action with violence have the same free will that he has, and they could choose to respond in a non-violent way. But many of them won't. Both Jones's actions and the actions of the violent responders are wrong. But Jones would not have CAUSED the violent reactions, regardless of the fact that they may not have happened had he not burned the Qurans; any more than you CAUSED me to hit you by pissing me off. What caused it was my own ignorance of the fact that my violence toward you was an unnecessary and inappropriate response.