Anas Coburn
January 19, 2009

 Muslims in America have long been concerned about the portrayal of Islam in mainstream media.  We have been effective in addressing some of the stereotypes about Muslims and Islam in the educational arena through the excellent work of the Council on Islamic Education and Islamic Networks Group, among others.  Over the last few years, there has been an increasing presence of Muslim voices appearing in the media, and more recognition of the importance of American Muslims getting involved in journalism.  But events like the ongoing tragedy in Gaza bring home how far from being heard in the United States Muslim voices are when it comes to issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

 Kamran Memon, an attorney from Chicago (see Muslims for a Safer America), takes the view that we cannot change American policy towards Israelis and Palestinians unless we successfully make the argument that such a change would be in America's best interests.  He recognizes that any idea of American neutrality is currently a very far-out idea.  Such a view is not even considered to be within the realm of legitimate debate.  To be sure, Michael Scheuer, a 22 year veteran of the CIA and from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center, has advanced such a view.  (See his book Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq).  But his ideas have little traction in the mainstream media, and even less on Capitol Hill, judging by the recent non-binding resolution in the House that voiced complete, non-critical support of Israel’s actions in Gaza.  So how do we work towards first, making the idea that the United States must change its policy toward Israel simply conceivable in mainstream discourse, and then moving it toward acceptance? (For Scheuer’s ideas about this, see here.)

  Jay Rosen, a professor of Journalism at NYU, presents a useful model for understanding how the media decide which ideas and points-of-view they consider to be within the sphere of legitimate debate.  In order to most productively deploy our resources and efforts for change, Muslims in America and others who perceive the long-term harm that current US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians is doing to the national interests of the United States must understand the way media work.  Rosen’s model provides a simple and powerful insight in this regard.  His model also explains why the Internet weakens the authority of the press, which can help us to use the Internet more effectively.

 The basic idea is simple.  Draw a large circle.  Within the large circle, draw a smaller circle.  The small circle represents the sphere of consensus.  These are ideas that the media believe everyone accepts, and because everyone accepts them, journalists don’t feel compelled to present opposing views, or to even attempt to remain disinterested observers.  As Rosen notes parenthetically, “(Which means that anyone whose basic views lie outside the sphere of consensus will experience the press not just as biased but savagely so. )” The area outside the larger circle is what Rosen calls the sphere of deviance.  This is comprised “political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard. ” In the case of  Israel, Rosen writes: “if you dissent from the ‘lockstep behavior of both major American political parties when it comes to Israel’ (Glenn Greenwald) chances are you will never find your views reflected in the news.  It’s not that there’s a one-sided debate; there’s no debate. ” In between the two circles is an area that represents the sphere of legitimate debate.  The sphere of legitimate debate is the one journalists recognize as real, normal, everyday terrain.  They think of their work as taking place almost exclusively within this space.  (It doesn’t, but they think so. )”

 Rosen’s piece is well worth the read.  The model he presents, in its original form, comes from the 1986 book The Uncensored War by press scholar Daniel C.  Hallin.  The comments section are a fascinating thread that provides examples of the implications of these ideas, as well as other useful notions, like the phrase “treetops propaganda,” coined by Alex Carey to refer to propaganda not directed to the person on the street, but intended to influence a select group of influential people.  Rosen’s ideas nicely complement Noam Chomsky’s important insights about Manufacturing Consent.