“The Islamic Rape of Europe”

The Effect of Immigration on Europe?

One of Poland’s most popular weekly magazines has splashed a graphic depiction of the rape of Europe’s women by migrants on its front cover. The image may be one of the most politically incorrect illustrations of the migrant crisis to date....

Making perfectly clear the intention of the edition, the edition features articles titled ‘Does Europe Want to Commit Suicide?’ and ‘The Hell of Europe’. The news-stand blurb declares: “In the new issue of the weekly Network, a report about what the media and Brussels elite are hiding from the citizens of the European Union”.

Opening the cover article, Aleksandra Rybinska writes: “The people of old Europe after the events of New Year’s Eve in Cologne painfully realised the problems arising from the massive influx of immigrants. The first signs that things were going wrong, however, were there a lot earlier. They were still ignored or were minimised in significance in the name of tolerance and political correctness”.

Outlining the fundamental differences between eastern Islam and western Christianity — “culture, architecture, music, gastronomy, dress” — the editorial explains these two worlds have been at war “over the last 14 centuries” and the world is now witnessing a colossal “clash of two civilisations in the countries of old Europe”. This clash is brought by Muslims who come to Europe and “carry conflict with the Western world as part of the collective consciousness”, as the journalist marks the inevitability of conflict between native Europeans and their new guests.

Undercover journalism

I'm going to give a fuller answer to a question I was asked:

Bill Valicella has elsewhere brought up the point that liberals have no compunction about playing politics dirty. They lie, they misrepresent, they bully, and they try to shut down any view that doesn't comport with theirs. They cheat, in other words. He thinks that if conservatives don't follow suit, they will be buried; what do you think?

i) Christians can't merely respond in kind. We can't simply take our tactics from unbelievers, then do the same thing in reverse.

We must have our own standards. The problem is when some believers frame Christian ethics as an otherworldly ideal that can't offer concrete, constructive guidance or solutions in a fallen, real-world situation.

There's the question of what Christian ethics prescribes, proscribes, or permits. That's what I've been exploring.

ii) Undercover journalism is a good illustration. And I think Lila Rose and James O’Keefe are fine examples. For instance:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/261860/print

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/409178/print

My point is not to issue them a blank check, but to commend the kinds of things they investigate. 

Undercover journalists misrepresent their background or true intentions. Is that unethical? Depends.

a) Is this information that can only be obtained by subterfuge? 

b) Is this information which the public is entitled to have? 

Offhand, I'd say those are two necessary conditions which jointly constituted a sufficient condition. Mind you, I'm not attempting to provide an exhaustive set of criteria. There may be exceptions or other criteria.

iii) Some ethicists treat undercover journalism is a last resort. But that's ambiguous. It's not like you can go to the same shady outfit twice, where the first time you are upfront about your intentions, then failing that, you return with the same questions, only this time you resort to subterfuge. 

You won't have that fallback, because you blew your cover the first time. The shady outfit will be on guard the next time around. So you only get one shot. Better aim well to make it hit the mark. 

iv) Among other things, the ethics of undercover journalism involves the question of reasonable expectations. I just did a general post on that subject:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/04/reasonable-expectations.html

Is there a reasonable expectation that the people who question you don't have a hidden agenda? In some cases, yes. For instance, in Beltway journalism you have a cozy relationship involving bureaucrats who leak information to trusted reporters at the Washington Post or NYT. 

This has less to do with the ethics of journalism than the pragmatics of journalism. If a reporter had a reputation for burning anonymous sources, all his sources would dry up overnight. So he must protect the confidentiality of his informations to have informants.

v) However, undercover journalism is known to exist. So there's no automatic presumption that you might not be the target of a journalist who misrepresents his background or intentions. 

vi) Likewise, undercover journalists "trick" the respondent into telling the truth. The respondent thinks that he has a sympathetic audience. It's safe to drop guard down and say what his outfit really does.

But as a rule, you aren't wronging someone by getting them to tell the truth. There's a prima facie duty to tell the truth, absent countervailing duties.

In addition, this is getting them to tell the truth about wrongdoing committed at or by their establishment. It isn't wrong to expose wrongdoing or wrongdoers.

And this isn't confined to interviewing participants. It may involve observing misconduct, by taking a job at the establishment. Infiltrating the organization to become an eyewitness. 

Let's give some examples of undercover journalism: the Walter Reed scandal, elder abuse in nursing homes. Patient abuse at psychiatric facilities. Voter fraud. Medicaid fraud. Welfare queens. The refusal of Planned Parenthood to report statutory rape. The seduction of minors by homosexual predators. Child prostitution. Redating expired meat. Lax airport security. Police corruption. 

These are things which gov't ought to investigate and prosecute, but is frequently negligent because gov't is itself complicit in wrongdoing. 

“You are clearly obfuscating…”

Scott Clark published this clip under the heading “What American Journalists Once Did”. I’ve always believed that journalism, properly practiced, is an effective means of arriving at the truth of things. One hopes that there will be more of this kind of realization:



From YouTube:

Published on Oct 8, 2014
Emma Alberici and Wassim Doureihi of Hizb ut-Tahrir clash on Lateline over Isis

Lateline presenter Emma Alberici and Wassim Doureihi of Hizb ut-Tahrir clash on ABC's late-night news show in a discussion about Tony Abbott's comments on extremist organisations. She presses him to say if he supports the Isis tactic of beheading western journalists and aid workers. On Melbourne radio on Thursday morning, the prime minister praised Alberici: "She's a feisty interviewer," he said. "Good on her for having a go and I think she spoke for our country last night.

Taking credit

Ingrid Schlueter, whom Janet Mefferd dubs her "part-time assistant producer," has resigned in the aftermath the Driscoll plagiarism kerfuffle. From what I've read, Schlueter is a long-time critic of Driscoll. But this raise an awkward question: who actually dug up the incriminating material on Driscoll–Mefferd or Schleuter? Mefferd accuses Driscoll of taking credit for someone else's research, but was she herself taking the credit for someone else's research? 

Of course, that does nothing to exonerate Driscoll. But it raises the question of whether Mefferd is guilty of the same offense she indicts Driscoll for. I wonder if Driscoll's critics and Mefferd's supporters will now measure her by the same yardstick. I'm not holding my breath. Do we have consistent standards? Or do we have rubbery standards that expand or contract according to our agenda? 

Team colors

i) I'm going to do a wrap-up on the Driscoll/Mefferd kerfuffle. I'm less concerned with the details of this particular controversy than how it's been handled. Unfortunately, this controversy exposes an identity-politics mentality in evangelicalism. By that I mean two things:

a) Do you judge each issue on the merits? On a case-by-case basis? Or do you apply guilt-by-association? Are you predisposed to take sides based on baggage that has no logical bearing on the specific issue at hand? 

b) Do you pick your in-group based on your positions, or does your in-group pick your positions for you? In other words, do you first make an independent judgment on what's the right position to take, then affiliate with a group that shares your outlook, or do you begin with your in-group, which, in turn, predetermines what positions you will take? 

In the Driscoll/Mefferd Kerfuffle, I'm struck by the degree to which many participants automatically line up on one side or the other based on their prior affiliations rather than the issue at hand. They seem to be oblivious to how their position is dictated by their group-identity. 

Try a little thought experiment. Suppose a reporter went to the campus of The Master's College and conducted one of those man-on-the-street interviews. Suppose he quotes some statements by John MacArthur which he attributes to Joel Osteen. And suppose he quotes some statements by Joel Osteen which he attributes to John MacArthur. The tendency is for people to agree with statements based on who they think said it, rather than the content of the statement itself. If you're a fan of MacArthur, your reflexive impulse is to agree with a statement by Osteen attributed to MacArthur and disagree with a statement by MacArthur attributed to Osteen. And if you're a fan of Osteen, the same is true in reverse. 

That's the kind of dynamic I often see in play in this particular controversy. 

ii) Mefferd has issued a retraction. Among other things she says:

I now realize the interview should not have occurred at all. I should have contacted Tyndale House directly to alert them to the plagiarism issue. And I never should have brought it to the attention of listeners publicly. So I would like to apologize to all of you and to Mark Driscoll for how I behaved. I am sorry. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2013/12/04/janet-mefferd-removes-evidence-relating-to-charges-of-plagiarism-against-mark-driscoll-apologizes-to-audience/

I don't know what to make of this. Speaking for myself, it isn't clear to me that she has anything to apologize for. 

Peter Lumpkins reacted by saying:

For my part, her obviously sincere apology should strengthen our respect for her as a credible journalist, radio host, and committed believer. Thank you, Janet, for following both godly Christian counsel and your mature Christian conscience.  

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/12/janet-mefferd-pulls-documentation-alleging-plagiarism-against-mark-driscoll.html

That's classic double-talk. Whatever she does, she can do no wrong. She was right when she was crusading against Driscoll, yet she was right when she backed down. People like Lumpkins were rooting for her when she went after Driscoll, and they are still rooting for her when she suddenly folds. But if she was right to do it in the first place, she was wrong to break it off and reverse course. And if she was right to back down, then she was wrong at the outset. 

iii) Apropos (ii), I saw a "lead pastor" touting an article coyly entitled "Journalist Accused of Committing Sin of Journalism". And I saw other supporters invoke her journalistic credentials. But that, by itself, proves nothing. She got into a dustup with Joe Carter, but he teaches journalism–so that cancels out the journalism card. Both can play that card. 

There are good journalists and bad journalists. Geraldo Rivera is a journalist. Dan Rather is a journalist. Martin Bashir is a journalist. Rachel Maddow is a journalist. 

iv) Ironically, Mefferd may be guilty of the very thing she accused Driscoll of doing. Mefferd furnished evidence that Driscoll failed to credit his sources. But that raises the same question in reference to Mefferd. Was the incriminating evidence she adduced the result of her personal investigation, or did an uncredited staffer do the actual research? Did Mefferd really comb through all that Mars Hill material by herself to find a smoking gun? Or did an anonymous staffer do the spadework, while Mefferd gets all the credit? 

v) Mind you, I think TGC should have pulled the trigger on Driscoll some time ago. To judge by reviews, Real Marriage was sufficient grounds to cut ties. And before that, his "pornographic divination" (in Phil Johnson's apt phrase) was sufficient grounds. 

vi) For his part, Justin Taylor weighed in:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/12/03/7-thoughts-on-pastors-writing-books/?comments#comment-139691

Among other things, he said:

I thought that Ms. Mefferd acted unprofessionally and that authors should know something about her modus operandi here. First, she has every right to raise the issue, but it should have been done first to Mark or his publisher offline. It’s a violation of the Golden Rule. 

I find that odd because he seems to be alluding to the Mt 18 criterion. Yet I believe Justin agrees with D. A. Carson on how often that's misused:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/editorial_on_abusing_matthew_18

Since Mefferd was publicly commenting on something that was already in the public domain, I don't see the relevance of Mt 18. And even if it wasn't in the public domain, some things ought to be brought to light. 

Justin continues:

Third, she told an untruth (conspiracy theorists notwithstanding) that he hung up on her. Her producer even emailed a breathless report to bloggers trying to make a story out of this. Maybe she has apologized for this but I haven’t seen it.

That's a technical issue which I'm in no position to confirm, but it raises a valid issue. 

Justin goes on to say:

This is not the first time I’ve observed this behavior from her. I think it is very problematic that she has given a platform to a known slanderer regarding the SGM situation. She also tried to try the case in the court of public opinion and proceeded in an unbiblical way. In other words, this didn’t seem like a one-off situation.

I don't have an informed opinion to offer on the SGM allegations. I do think it was imprudent as well as premature for Carson, Taylor, and DeYoung to go out on a limb in defense of Mahaney.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/05/24/why-we-have-been-silent-about-the-sgm-lawsuit/

In fairness to Justin, whom I like and respect, it's a fact of human psychology that if you're constantly subjected to unreasonable criticism, you are apt to discount even reasonable criticism from the same malicious source. 

vii) I've already alluded a twitter war between Mefferd and Joe Carter on the Driscoll affair. This was preceded by an earlier shootout between Mefferd and Carter, which generated yet another comment thread:

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/10/janet-mefford-on-joe-carters-stop-slandering-christs-bride-corrective-an-unwarranted-scolding-discou.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e2019affd67c2e970d#comment-6a00d83451a37369e2019affd67c2e970d

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/10/janet-mefford-on-joe-carters-stop-slandering-christs-bride-corrective-an-unwarranted-scolding-discou.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e2019affd67d46970c#comment-6a00d83451a37369e2019affd67d46970c

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/10/janet-mefford-on-joe-carters-stop-slandering-christs-bride-corrective-an-unwarranted-scolding-discou.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e2019affd6d008970b#comment-6a00d83451a37369e2019affd6d008970b

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/10/janet-mefford-on-joe-carters-stop-slandering-christs-bride-corrective-an-unwarranted-scolding-discou.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e2019affd6f983970b#comment-6a00d83451a37369e2019affd6f983970b

So that supplies some of the background leading up to the current hostilities. 

The ethics of ambush journalism

The Mark Driscoll/Janet Mefferd kerfuffle continues apace. Mefferd has been criticized on a couple of grounds:

i) One criticism is that she was mean to Driscoll. All I can say is that given Driscoll's carefully cultivated he-man image, I don't think his supports do him any favors by suggesting he was bullied by a woman. 

ii) Another criticism is that she's motivated to spike ratings. That's a plausible accusation–but it's also a red herring.

iii) Yet another criticism is that she ambushed him by springing a series of hostile, unexpected questions on him. Indeed, the whole interview was staged as a pretext to put him on the spot. And this does, indeed, raise an issue regarding the ethics of ambush journalism. I don't think there's a uniform answer on whether that's right or wrong.

On the one hand, interviewees naturally prefer softball interviews. If they knew ahead of time that they were going to be peppered with embarrassing or incriminating questions, they'd never submit to the interview in the first place. So it poses a dilemma for a journalist. If an interviewee knows what to expect, he can come forearmed with prepared answers which deflect the questions. Or he can avoid that reporter entirely. Yet some interviewees ought to be exposed. They are used to evading public scrutiny. They are using to playing to sympathetic venues. 

Mike Wallace was the godfather of ambush journalism. I once saw him catch John Connally, a presidential aspirant, in a blatant lie on live, national television. Connally feigned indignation, but the damage was done–and deservedly so. 

On the other hand, ambush journalism is a poor way to elicit information. Indeed, that's not really the point. Ambush journalism can be unfair in the sense that a reporter will ask the guest a question about something he allegedly said or wrote 20 years ago. He probably doesn't remember what he said or wrote 20 years ago. Since he had no lead-time to review the record, he can't explain or defend his alleged statement. 

On the one hand, I've seen interviewees give inaccurate answers to questions. But because the reporter didn't expect the answer, the reporter was in no position to disprove the answer. It's a day later that the reporter says we investigated the answer and it turns out that the answer was false. 

On the other hand, I've seen interviewers falsely attribute a statement to the guest, or quote the statement out of context. But because the guest didn't expect the question, the guest was in no position to disprove the allegation. It's a day later that the guest can set the record straight. But by then it's too late. What viewers remember is the interview, not the correction or retraction. 

If the guest can't anticipate the question, that puts the reporter at a tactical advantage and the guest at a tactical disadvantage. Conversely, if the reporter can't anticipate the answer, that puts the guest at a tactical advantage and the reporter at a tactical disadvantage. 

Driscoll's critics say an honest guest has nothing to hide, nothing to fear from a tough interview. But that's simplistic. An honest guest may not have that detailed information at his fingertips.

Ambush journalism is ethical if the guest is a guilty and the journalist is accurate. Ambush journalism is unethical if the guest is innocent and the reporter is inaccurate. There's nothing wrong with making a bad guy look bad. But bad reporters can make good guys look bad. So it all depends. 

Interview with Martin Bashir

Paul Edwards interviews MSNBC's Martin Bashir.

Here’s the audio of my interview with MSNBC’s Martin Bashir on his interview with Emergent Universalist Rob Bell of Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids. Martin discloses whether or not he is a committed Christian and if the blog rumors are true that he attends Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.