Now that American reporters increasingly are covering Islam,
will most be able to get beyond press releases and provide context for what
they are told? A little test I've just done raises questions.
The test concerned an incident first reported over 3,000 years
ago. The book of Genesis in the Bible tells of Abraham almost sacrificing
his son Isaac. Muslims, though, believe that the Bible is wrong, and when
they celebrated last week the Eid al-Adha holiday that commemorates the
event, they told reporters that Abraham nearly killed his oldest son,
That created an interesting test of journalistic evenhandedness.
Newspapers had the choice of A) reporting the Muslim version of the
sacrifice and pointing out that the Jewish and Christian version long
preceded it; B) reporting the Muslim version and also noting the Jewish and
Christian version; C) reporting the Muslim version as a version, but not
necessarily as fact, and not mentioning the alternative; or D) reporting the
Muslim version of the event as objective fact.
My Lexis-Nexis search found 25 stories from Feb. 8 through Feb.
13 that included the words "Abraham" and "sacrifice" in relation to Eid
al-Adha. Journalists who chose A would be providing the fullest account.
Reporters could also be fair by selecting B. Even C, although incomplete, is
not inaccurate. But D -- stating emphatically that Ishmael was the intended
victim and not even mentioning the Jewish or Christian understanding --
seems an unlikely choice for a well-informed, evenhanded reporter.
First set of results: None of the stories fell into category A.
Five were in category B. The Tulsa World on Feb. 8 noted the key difference:
"The Quran, the holy book of Islam, relates that God commanded Abraham to
sacrifice his first born, Ishmael, then stayed his hand before the sacrifice
was made and provided a lamb for the sacrifice. The Bible of the Christians
and Jews tells a similar story, but it records that it was Abraham's younger
son, Isaac, not Ishmael, who was about to be sacrificed."
The Associated Press on Feb. 12 was more succinct: "The Quran,
the Islamic scripture, says it was Abraham's son Ishmael who was spared by
God's order, while the Bible says it was Isaac."
Four stories were in category C, at least noting that the
Ishmael-sacrifice story had a Muslim source. For example, the (Salt Lake
City) Deseret News on Feb. 11 noted, "According to Islamic scripture,
Abraham loved God so much that he would have sacrificed his son Ishmael; God
revealed his love for Abraham by giving him a ram to sacrifice instead."
The New York Times on Feb. 12 reported on "God's last-minute
command to Abraham to slaughter a sheep instead of his son Ishmael. The
Muslim holy book, the Koran, says God wanted to test Abraham's faith by
ordering him to sacrifice his son." Nothing about the biblical account in
"the newspaper of record."
Fifteen stories were in category D, with newspapers such as the
Dallas Morning News (on Feb. 8) stating, as if fact, "the Prophet Abraham's
willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael at God's command." The Rochester
Democrat and Chronicle mixed scriptures on Feb. 12 by noting that "The feast
commemorates the willingness of the biblical patriarch Abraham to sacrifice
his son Ishmael to Allah before an angel intervenes."
Newspapers from all over the United States -- the Arizona
Republic, the Tucson Citizen, the (Lafayette, Ind.) Journal and Courier, the
(Riverside, Calif.) Press-Enterprise, Fort Collins Coloradoan and the
(Monroe, La.) News-Star all reported without sourcing what the Austin
American-Statesman on Feb. 12 called "Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his
son Ishmael at God's command."
So here's the bottom line: 60 percent of the newspapers offered
the Muslim version as if it were objective fact. Only one in five newspapers
noted the existence of a biblical story that is older than and different
from the Islamic story. This doesn't create a lot of confidence in
journalistic knowledge and balance.