The Wake

The following editorial is an in-depth dissection of a news report originally aired on Channel 5 KSTP nightly news. While not required, the author feels that the readership would benefit greatly from actually viewing the aforementioned report by visiting

I hate to be a broken record, but sometimes things just line up. Sometimes you see something that makes your brain light up, synapses firing and connections quickly piling up and spilling from the realm of postulation to possibility.

For someone who doesn’t watch television and has loudly sworn off TV news, I find myself writing about it a lot more than I would care to. It just seems that TV news has taken on this Wild West, laissez-faire attitude towards broadcasting stories that are not only completely over the top, but also lazy, offensive and unintentionally comedic. And as we all know, it’s that kind of trash that circulates the fastest. To wit: an alarmist news report about the “Playstation Pornable” is much more likely to circulate around YouTube and the blogosphere than a piece on housing legislation.

But as the Wu-Tang Clan said, after the laughter comes the tears. Once we’ve snickered at the media’s ridiculous portrayal of issues that we are intimately involved in, we have to consider that this was made by somebody who believes this for somebody who believes this. As far as I’m concerned, that demands reflection rather than ridicule. One such story was aired on Channel 5 (KSTP) on Feb. 23. It was brought to my attention in a most inauspicious way by a promo airing around-the-clock in the days preceding the story’s airing. The promo said as follows (transcribed from the intro to the story):

“When six Muslim men were pulled from a plane last November, it gained national attention. Passengers called their actions suspicious, but the men say they were targets of discrimination. Tonight, for the first time, the passenger who alerted the flight crew (speaks).”

A little background: The incident they were referring to was one in which six Imams (or Muslim leaders, also known as Sheikhs) were pulled from a plane scheduled to depart from Minneapolis based on an anonymous passenger tip. The Imams were detained and released without charge, but the airline refused to rebook their flights, leaving them stranded.

The promo caught my attention due to its use of the word “men.” If six Priests were detained, would they be called “Christian Men?” How about Rabbis? “Jewish men?” The disrespect inherent in this word choice pointed to an antagonistic slant on the incident. As it would turn out, the KSTP crew was only getting started. They were going to go medieval on these “men,” and I mean that as in the Crusades.

The report itself is so rife with racist rhetoric, fear-mongeringfear mongering and flat-out ignorance that it’s hard to pick a starting point for analysis; the beginning of the report will have to do. After the intro, the story begins by describing the Imams as attention-seekingattention seeking, using a clip of Sheikh Omar Shahin (one of the detained) explaining that the airline would not serve them after the incident as “proof.” Here the report establishes one of its favored leitmotifs: the lack of a counterpoint. They never stop to analyze the incident or question the actions of authorities. They never stop to consider that the Imams were deemed innocent and then refused service. They never even consider that the victims might see this as strange or, Reagan help us, unjust.

Of course there’s no time for reflection when you have an ambush to carry out. Yes, that’s right. An ambush. You see, KSTP went down to Arizona (as the narrator says “I tracked him down at his home in Arizona,”) and ambushed Sheikh Shahin as he was leaving work and asked him questions like “A lot of people just don’t believe your story … can you tell us what really happened that night?” and “Why don’t people believe that it was an innocent flight home?” Here things get really out of hand for a number of reasons. First of all, the report uses the rhetoric of criminality and guilt in a way that is absolutely disgusting. The reporter asks pointed questions in a “guilty until proven innocent” fashion that assumes that the viewer knows the subject is lying about their innocence. Furthermore, the reporter “tracks down” Shahin as if he is a criminal on the run from Minneapolis justice. Following this logic, the only reason that the Imam would refuse an interview is that he is a terrorist. The truth is that an Imam in a vibrant city is not just a leader of religious services; he is also a counselor, an intellectual, a decision-maker, an ambassador and a fund-raiser, just to name a few of the myriad roles that Muslim leaders occupy. On top of that, most of them work or own businesses in addition to their religious duties. The fact that Sheikh Shahin wouldn’t take time out of his day to be insulted by the junior-detective antics of the KSTP team speaks less to his guilt and more to the ignorance of the reporters framing the story.

Of course the rhetoric of criminality fails to take this into account. The only thing that matters is that we get a straight story from a crooked man. By using subtle language cues and pointed questions, the narrator never has to say the word “terrorist” (he doesn’t) or even get an answer from the target; Shahin is indicted regardless of what he says or does. His refusal to talk (regardless of the reason) is just as damning as any answer that he has given or will give. Even his bemused response of “you’ll have to ask them,” (in response to “Why don’t people believe that it was an innocent flight home?”) is answered with a cocksure, “I did just that!”

And, in fact, they did.

Oh man, they totally did.

The centerpiece of the story is an interview with the man who tipped off authorities. His face blurred and voice distorted, the passenger proceeds to sling thinly veiled stereotypes and racial epithets. In his own words: “At first glance they look like business people, but then they’re not, they’re acting like they’re angry, like an angry mob.” The police report and the passenger’s note combine to describe a group of angry “Arabic” men having a “heated discussion” about the “U.S.” and “killing Saddam” that involved “mumbling” or “swearing under their breath.” Once again, the problem here is attributed to suspicious activity rather than cultural misunderstanding. With a little help from our aloof friend, common sense, another possibility appears. You see, Arabic is a rather harsh language and Arabs often speak in a way that is often described as more intense or combative than English to the point that many Arabic speakers joke that the most mundane banter can sound like a fight to the untrained ear. Also unlike American culture, Arabs have no taboo against the discussion of politics. Instead of considering this, the report simply “corroborates” the passenger’s views with police reports and the passenger’s statement that other boarders were frightened as well.

Despite the official-sounding padding, the description of the Imams is what’s important here. The “whistle-blower” resorts to common stereotypes of Arabs and minorities in general as an outlet for his fear. He looks not to facts or identifiable incidents, instead focusing on the practices of the observed that seem “strange” to him. The passenger describes the Sheikhs as an “angry mob” that conspicuously voices its rage over political issues. The beards, turbans and little ACME dynamite sticks are all conveniently drawn in between the lines, because all of that stuff, like “reasonable doubt,” is secondary to prejudice and intuition. When scrutinized, the description seems ridiculous as a precedent for legal action. It seems a lot like detaining a group of politicians for gesticulating wildly and saying things like “stay the course,” or a bunch of Carlson kids for wearing perfectly pressed suits and self-satisfied smiles. Here’s a more helpful analogy:

“Six nigger men, talking loudly and communicating in strange hand gestures, wearing inordinately baggy clothes, please help.”

If that seems a bit stronger than the actual description, it’s only because we’re conditioned to process “nigger” as a word that is even more derogatory and forbidden than “fuck” and because we know that we’re not supposed to view African Americans as criminal (although the practice is still rampant). Arabs, though, are a completely different ballgame. The incredible ignorance about the history, culture and beliefs of the Arabs and Muslims that is in America today leads to the fear and racism displayed by the anonymous passenger on that fateful flight.

It becomes a much larger issue, though, when a mainstream media outlet decides not just to report on it, but to use every rhetorical tool in their possession to affirm such beliefs and “spread the message” that Arabs and their leaders are to be distrusted. The report climaxes when it actually asks the audience to decide for themselves whether or not the six Imams look like criminals in the photos taken during their detention. One couldn’t ask for a more beautiful summation of the report’s goals and rhetoric than that. In the end, the Channel 5 news team is taking a stand and asking the audience to as well. They are asking you to stand in judgment of six men deemed legally innocent and find them guilty of being different. They want you to condemn your fellow human beings simply because they are not like you and to punish them not with further detention, but rather with banishment from society.

When the last ominous voiceover has faded and the screen is cleared of faux-documentation and clipart Polaroids, I’m only left with one question: why? When we break it down, the report was made by living, breathing human beings rather than some nebulous “establishment.” What did those people stand to gain from it? What did they hope to accomplish by spreading fear and hatred? Who profits from conditioning the average American to hate and fear those who are different from them? There is no security threat outlined, no warning about safety and no moral presented at the end of the story. The last message is a wryly ironicwryly-ironic observation rather than a call to arms; nowhere is further legal action urged or even suggested. The reporters leave the purpose of the story completely undefined; the terminus of our half hour of hate completely inconsequential. But like Run DMC, I’m not going out like that.

Social responsibility is a concept that has been all but abandoned, so we need to bring it back. As an active citizenry, we need to challenge lazy, irresponsible journalism and encourage the media to pursue productive ways of thought, presentation and distribution. We must issue a challenge to the racism, hate and bigotry that we see propagated on our airwaves and in our public space. Through whatever means we have, we must let the gatekeepers of the media and the public know that we will not silently accept the consensus of the “silent majority.” And when I say whatever means, I mean whatever; tell your friends, write some letters, hell, even send a link or paraphrase of this article to KSTP. As long as the message is heard or the statement made, we’ve done our part.

Sometimes you see something that makes your brain light up, synapses firing and connections quickly piling up and spilling from the realm of postulation to possibility. The world of broadcast journalism can seem like an elusive vapor trail snaking towards the heavens, but it’s still a part of our world. It’s still our moving bulletin board and it beckons for our messages to be placed upon it. In time our lives will be reflected in its gaze.