| Lots of scary things in Sunday's New York Times, including a rise in food stamps, bank resistance to helping troubled homeowners and a horrific detention center at an American base in Afghanistan. But nothing, not even news of Med Grow Cannabis College, was as scary as Tom Friedman's column. "America vs. The Narrative" was not meant to be a revealing look at the mainstream media's myopia. But it's easy to see why I and hundreds of other readers saw it that way. Friedman's target was "the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11." According to this narrative, "America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand 'American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy' to keep Muslims down." I cannot evaluate the truth of Friedman's claim of the narrative's saliency or its role in Major Nidal Hasan's attack on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. But I can challenge Friedman's focus when equally scurrilous narratives fog Americans' perceptions of religion and politics—and when journalists bear responsibility for circulating, if not promoting, them.
But don't take my word for it; see what a few of Friedman's 688 readers had to say:
- "Is it a surprise that the uneducated of the Moslem world buy the Narrative, considering the way the Narrative of Limbaugh and Palin is bought by their American counterparts?" Jim S from Cleveland.
- "I have no doubt that the Narrative you describe exists among a certain group of Muslims. In fact, I have seen and heard it myself. But what you fail to understand is that you have a Narrative too. According to your narrative, America is morally and politically superior to the Muslim world, and has a right to export (read: force) its values to them." ORS from the UK.
- "Pretty ironic that Tom Friedman would complain about The Narrative in a paper that is guilty as any other for promoting it." Jen Conley from San Diego.
Is it possible to tell a story without promoting a narrative? According to journalistic ideals, it is—or it should be if a reporter is fair, balanced and objective. But web-based access to a wide range of sources as well as first hand information demonstrates that even the best-intentioned reporter always writes first from her own perspective and then follows a narrative that has been vetted by her corporate masters. (How could it be otherwise? What American news outlet would allow a story that promoted Communism as a social good or that posited theocracy as a worthwhile political goal? Of course our journalists stick to narratives that assume American democracy, free markets and religious pluralism are the natural, normal and summum bonum of human existence.)
Given such constraints, I'd expect more self awareness among pundits like Friedman. (Then again, Glenn Greenwald might say I am delusional for such expectations.) I'd also like to see journalists confronting the limitations of their narratives and experimenting with ways to circumvent them.
Diane Winston
| 
