Anticipating
This is one reason I think the Times article is very odd and in fact unfair.
There is no Muslim outrage about this book yet, but the fear of it is palpable enough for the Sunday Times to write an article about it. And if that outrage does indeed materialize, this will be yet another case, as here and here and here, of Muslims becoming outraged over accurate representations of Islamic texts and teachings.
Yes, it will, but on the other hand, in this case as well as the Jewel of Medina/Denise Spellberg case, it will also be a case of ‘Muslims’ (which is to say, some Muslims) being nudged into becoming outraged. I’m really not sure it’s fair to start with nudging people into being outraged and then rebuking them for their hypothetical future state of being outraged. How about waiting until someone actually does get outraged before rebuking anyone for getting outraged? That would be an idea, don’t you think?
Robert Spencer did say there is no Muslim outrage yet, which was alert and fair of him. One could be forgiven for getting the impression from the Times article that there was some such outrage, or at least rumours of outrage. That’s the problem. Spencer had no way of knowing and no reason to think that Toomey was in fact reporting on her own ‘concerns’ and ‘suggestions’ and no one else’s, and that’s why such an article is so dubious. It gives an impression that is just plain false. The idea that ‘the fear of [“Muslim outrage”] is palpable enough for the Sunday Times to write an article about it’ is simply wrong. It’s not a matter of palpable fear that the Sunday Times picked up on, it’s a matter of Toomey predicting something and then reporting on her prediction as if it were reality.
Of course, it’s true that people can always refuse to get outraged even if people try to nudge them into it; and they ought to; but all the same, if people do try to nudge them into it…that’s a kind of entrapment. I thought that when Spellberg did it, and I think it about this.
This is truly bizarre, a news story about something that is not news. It’s an underhanded way of being sensational, I think, and it has the sound of “I told you so.” So it is really a kind of pre-emptive censorship, and therefore cowardly. I don’t think Robert Spencer is alert and fair at all. The Times ought to be severely scolded about this. I don’t think they’ll listen to me, but someone needs to tell them that this kind of thing is destructive. They shouldn’t do it.
I’m sorry, I meant to say “pre-emptive self-censorship.”
Well, a little bit alert – he could have jumped to the conclusion that there was outrage yet, but he noticed that in fact there wasn’t.
One expects the ‘It Could Happen!’ type of speculative beat up as copy filed on a bad news day.
Hardly called for at the moment though is it? I mean, what with the never-ending fallout from expensesgate, the conflict in Pakistan, the nuclear issues in Korea and the disappointing result in the final of Britain’s Got Talent.
(Well, I’m disappointed.)
Yeah it’s not exactly a dry period for news, I’d have thought. I mean if one gets bored there’s always DR Congo, Darfu, Burma, to say nothing of Pakistan – and the Ryan report was undercovered in the UK, at least so I’m told.
I tend to have a low opinion of journalists. Not every single journalist of course, but of journalists as a professional group. One reason is that, over the years, I’ve found this practice of beating up stories out of nothing, rather than reporting on pre-existing newsworthy events, to be extremely common. So … I don’t like it, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least when I see one more example of it.
Thats exactly it, the reporter is creating the story before it happens.
“This is truly bizarre, a news story about something that is not news. “
Not at all bizarre, sadly. Anyone who has worked in newspapers will have done a bit of this, technically called ‘flying a kite’ (or it used to be). It happens all the time when a controversy is needed or wanted but none seems to be forthcoming.
Argh.
I know that of course, but I suppose I stupidly thought that when it’s the kind of ‘controversy’ that has in the past gone beyond mere shouting…people would be more responsible.
How fatuous of me.
Well, maybe, John Meredith, but in this case it’s not really a case of needing or wanting controversay. And is Christine Toomey flying a kite? The book has not been published. How could there be a controversy (needed or wanted)?
Maybe there should be a controversy, but over the undoubted failures of religions to treat women with dignity, not one expressing the shallow ‘fears of Muslim anger’, the spectre of which Toomey raises. Good for Spencer to pick it up and to say that what we really need to see is a Muslim backlash against some of Islam’s more primitive aspects, or some of the hadithi that say the same thing as Does God Hate Women?.
But now the Times is in a safe position. It can lie down supinely if there is an empty-headed backlash from the Islamist extreme, and it can throw brick bats with the best of them, or, if reason prevails, it can join the discussion as though they hadn’t given warning of a Muslim backlash. It’s all pretty contemptible stuff.
The truth is, the book will irritate theists of all stripes. The Times could have said that – it wouldn’t have been much of a story, but then this isn’t much of a story either, it’s more of an invention. So the Times could have said that, but instead it chose to zero in on one part of the book and speculate about non-existent fears.
“but in this case it’s not really a case of needing or wanting controversay. And is Christine Toomey flying a kite? “
I meant the journalist needing or wanting a controversy, not OB. And that article is classic kite flying. No substance, just vague suggestions, to see who it might flush out or encourage.
By the way, I saw you OB in the Absurder this Sunday and now I know what you look like (well, sort of, the photo is not very clear) which feels strange. You don’t look like I imagined you would although I can’t now think how I imagined that would be. Funny. My wife shoved the article in front of me (she doesn’t do blogs and doesn’t know your name) saying ‘you should read this by Ophelia Benson’. I did, and she was right.
John M, that’s an amusing bit of overlap. And thanks! I know, about pictures – people always do look not as one expected yet one didn’t expect anything in particular.
“the book will irritate theists of all stripes”
So several times a week they can run stories about the publication of books likely to irritate atheists and the secular by claiming they lack morality and will fry in hell. It’s worse than manufactured. I don’t think I’d be able to take it as calmly as you are. I mean, I’m sure you want PR for the book, but it looks like Toomey is trying to make the villagers with the blazing torches notice you: “Hey, potential lynch mob! Over there!”
I enjoyed in particular the weaselly wording of the first sentence of para 6 of Toomey’s article:
“Continuum’s book may cause a backlash because it sets out to be a factual examination of religious attitudes to women.”
This would suggest that the very intention of carrying out a ‘factual examination’ of religious attitudes to women may ’cause offence’.
The message: don’t even think about thinking of investigating inappropriate subjects. THIS TOPIC IS VERBOTEN IN POLITE SOCIETY.
Stewart – I know, about the villagers with torches. Either that or get the book pulped, which last week also seemed like a real possibility. Thanks a lot Christine Toomey.
Right. A book that points out that women don’t have equal rights in religion is risky to bring out because it’s so offensive, but a book that orders men to deny women rights is not only fine, it’s sacred (because it says it is). Why doesn’t Christine Toomey include in her article what a skewed state of affairs that is? Of course, I know what the answer to that question is.