A negative review
of TROP by MediaBiasFactCheck.com is rife with sensationalist terms like
"hate group" and "fake news," but it isn't clear
if TROP is actually being accused of these things on closer examination. The language in the piece is
ambiguous and disjointed. The phrase "may be" is used
several times in the initial paragraph, and various "and/or" conjunctions
separate harsh-sounding phrases.
This is kind of like us saying that the person who wrote the review "may be a
malcontent and/or cannibal."
We came out on the losing end of this poll
MediaBiasFactCheck asserts that "one or more" of a list of
provocative charges "may" be true, but doesn't provide much to go
on, at least in the opening paragraph - which is situated beneath a scary-looking
bar that appears to be driven by a popularity poll at the end with five negative choices to one positive.
The substance of the review is in the "notes" portion:
In reality, this is a website that promotes anti-Muslim propaganda
through only posting negative information about Islam, such as crimes that
may not be related to ones religion such as this where they link to a
Mixed factual source. In general, this source links to other media that
has a right wing bias or is otherwise questionable by our methodology.
The Religion of Peace also sources Robert Spencer in articles, who is on
the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list. Overall, we rate The Religion of
Peace as Questionable for having an extreme right wing bias, promotion of
conspiracy/propaganda and hate group tendencies. The charge that
TROP is "anti-Muslim" is addressed on our 'critics' page.
While it is true that a great deal of negative (but truthful) information about Islam
is posted on the site, TROP goes well out of its way in prominent postings to discourage
discrimination and ill will toward Muslims as people.
It seems that an objective reviewer would point this out. In fact, by not
mentioning this, isn't MediaBiasFactCheck demonstrating bias in exactly the same way that it is accusing TROP?
The review also accuses TROP of "propaganda," by posting to articles
about crimes that "may not be related to one's religion." TROP does sometimes link to stories related to bad behavior, but usually within the context of a larger issue, such as mass Muslim migration. Petty crime that is not much different from any other group is generally ignored. Inaccurate information is never knowingly "propagated" by TROP, nor is there any desire to lead anyone to a false conclusion.
The
example cherry-picked by MediaBiasFactCheck is a story linked to on Hürriyet Daily News
(a Turkish site) regarding a theft at a church in Turkey by four Muslims.
In a country with a history of Christian genocide, ongoing persecution of Christians, and state
confiscation
of entire churches, it could just be a coincidence that these young men chose a Christian
house of worship to rob, rather than one of the many mosques scattered along the way. If so, then point conceded.
However, TROP also posts news stories from Western countries that involve
shots fired at mosques, for example, even when the perpetrator and motive
are both unknown. TROP also gives attention to genuine hate crimes affecting Muslims, such as
the 2017 bombing of a mosque in Minnesota and the 2011 assault of a bystander in
California that actually got scant attention at the national level. The
reason is that we deplore attacks on innocent people or houses of worship which may be motivated by hate.
MediaBiasFactCheck also takes issue with the fact that TROP "sources" Robert
Spencer of Jihad Watch in some of the articles. This is where the "hate
group" insinuation is made. Spencer is called a "hate group"
by the SPLC, so by linking to him, we are tarred with the same brush. This
is not only spurious reasoning, but highly ironic for an organization touting 'reliability,'
given the SPLC's recent unmasking.
Even the left-leaning Washington Post states that the SPLC has
"lost all credibility"
in recent years by "smearing good people with false charges of bigotry." The
group even lost a slander suit to an individual who was unfairly slurred in
the same way as Spencer. If MediaBiasFactCheck defers to the SPLC for judgment calls,
then it certainly speaks poorly to their own credibility.
To further illustrate just how biased MediaBiasFactCheck is in their "reporting,"
consider
Charity
and Disaster Relief, the article it cites as an example of what to avoid on TROP.
This article contains about a dozen references to mainstream news sites, seven references
to the Hadith, two to fatwas by Islamic scholars, one to the Sharia, one to a financial
audit report, and even a link to CAIR's own site.
In fact, the most heavily referenced source in that article is the
Quran, with 14 verses quoted and linked. Yet, because
there is one generalized quote from Robert Spencer, MediaBiasFactCheck
throws out the entire article and rates TROP as "questionable"...
Talk about a case study in propaganda!
Lazy tactics such as these aren't just anti-intellectual, but manipulative. Readers
are even warned in dramatic fashion against clicking on the link to TROP (lest they turn into
a frog... or something). This isn't real journalism.
Our sense is that MediaBiasFactCheck.com has a knee-jerk bias against critics of Islam, and
uses inflammatory buzzwords to create a false impression. This doesn't speak to
an organization concerned with "getting it right."
"Fake news?" There are 150 news links on our sidebar at any time. Find
just one that leads to a story that is deliberately false. "Hate group?" Name
one thing said on the site that promotes or excuses violence or hatred toward Muslims. If you
can't find any of this on TROP, then why use these terms at all? Why not be objective?
TROP applauds any sincere effort to counter misinformation on the Internet. It is our charter as well.
But, as Donald Trump's critics correctly point out, "fake news" means
something different than 'information you don't agree with'.
|
