‘Mosque’ Near Ground Zero: Distortion of the Public Opinion

The possibility of Islamic Cultural Centre’s existence near the site of the old World Trade Centre in New York has brought an ongoing debate of whether the Centre should be build at the site. The issue has become one of the main focuses of the media and political scene across the United States.

Media has a leading role in the creation of public opinion. The main objective of reporting should be accurate, updated and objective display of an issue. If a reporter fails to account for these objectives, it contributes to distortion of public understanding and perception of a situation.

In Slate Magazine, William Saletan confutes the arguments against building of the Centre, attempting to gain the readers’ support for his own stand regarding the Centre. He writes that “ The arguments against building the project at its planned site are wrong, fallacious, and self-destructive.” http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2264046
The subjective reporting must not pass unnoticed, as reporting should be a reliable source for costumers who should be allowed to form their own opinion.

However, it is important to mention some actors in the media who handled the role of presenting the idea of building the Centre remarkably wisely. Taking no clear stand on the issue, the media attempts to objectively analyze the issue.

CNN displays the arguments for both, supporters and opponents of the idea. It quotes Pamela Geller, leader of a group named Stop the Islamization of America, who believes that building “ a 13-story mega mosque on the cemetery, on the site of the largest attack in American history,…, is incredibly insensitive." However, CNN continues by asserting that “Some Muslim community leaders say the mosque could provide an opportunity for improving interfaith relations.”http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-14/us/new.york.ground.zero.mosque_1_landmark-status-landmark-preservation-commission-mosque?_s=PM:US

At the other hand, the political parties are supposed to declare their stand on an issue, so that an individual can choose whom to fallow.
The way in which the political parties in the US have dealt the story displays the general political scene of the country. It shows not only the clash between the leading ideas of the two political parties, but also the inter-party disagreement of the Democrats. Rising disputes created exploitation of public opinion in a search of the parties to present the argument supporting their view. Overall, considering the politicians’ dealing with the story, the problem is not in expressing the opinion, but in assigning the public with the party’s stand on the issue.

Washington Post writes that“ Republican Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on CNN's ‘State of the Union’ that the issue is not that there is a legal right to build the mosque but that those involved should listen to public opinion, which he said is strongly opposed to the project.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081502756.html

Similarly, The New York Times quoted Republican James Renacci saying “It is very troubling to see President Obama again turning a deaf ear to the thoughts and concerns of a majority of Americans.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/politics/17mosque.html

Mr. King and Mr. Renacci attribute their opinion to the general ‘public opinion’ and ’majority of Americans’. This action creates a wrong impression of the general public stand on the issue. Also, it contributes to the distortion of the public opinion by pressing an individual to join the ‘majority’.

The public stand on the issue must be referenced with caution, as the public is divided to supporters and opponents of the Centre’s existence. Mr. Curry, a local resident who was near the old WTC on the September 11, claims that “ the proximity is important. I would not object the idea if the location is further away from the WTC. However, the location at which they try to build the mosque is offensive for all victims of the terrorism”. At the other hand, Mr. Owen, also a resident of the area support the idea asserting that “ the United States should maintain their reputation of allowing the freedom of all people to exercise their religion.”


By Lejla Mesic