« Race In School Assignments. | Main | Congress Acts To Preserve History »
December 5, 2006
A Brilliant But Bungled Radio Ploy
A DC-area talk radio host used his hour-long call-in program on the Sunday after Thanksgiving to argue that all Muslims in the United States should be forced to wear an identifying symbol -- a crescent -- so that we could more easily identify the enemy within.
It was really just a ploy; he was trying to see whether he'd draw support for such an outrageous and historically chilling idea. (Audio of the hour-long show is available here.)
Here's the thing, though. To make something like this really work, you've got to take a whole bunch of calls. You can find a crazy or two who'll call in to a radio program to support just about any damn thing. For a ploy like this to really work, you've got to line up quite a few callers who are willing to support the craziness you're spouting.
But the host took only four calls in the entire hour. And two of the callers excoriated him for making the suggestion in the first place. The other two supported the idea.
Don't get me wrong: it's certainly scary that even two people would voice support for making American Muslims wear a crescent. (Nowhere near as scary, though, as the recent Gallup poll of 1,007 adults that revealed that forty percent believe American Muslims support al Qaeda.) But two callers out of four were just not enough to create the effect that the radio host was shooting for. This is especially so because talk radio shows have call screeners, and I have to wonder whether the two callers out of four who made it through the screeners accurately represented the listening audience's reaction. The host kept saying that the phones were ringing off the walls, and that every line was full. Yet he took only four calls.
I'd love to see a radio host do this the right way: float the proposal for ten minutes or so, and then really open the phone lines to get a broad sampling of reaction. That would be much more revealing, and more useful, than what the DC host did.
Props to the DC guy for trying it out; it took guts. But unfortunately, I just don't think he taught us too much.
Posted by Eric at December 5, 2006 8:42 AM
Comments
Maybe they changed the article since you read it but your percentage of Americans who think Muslims support Al-Qaeda seems wrong. From the article, "About one-third said U.S. Muslims were sympathetic to al-Qaeda". While 1/3 is still a disgusting percentage it's not 40%. I wonder how that 1/3 possibly makes their way though polite society?
ELM: The number in the study was 39%. (I ordered a copy from Gallup.)
Posted by: cory kates at December 5, 2006 9:09 PM
I am not suggesting that any particular percentage of American Muslims support Al-Qaeda. But just for the sake of argument, how do any of you know what the percentage is?
I am not even Muslim, but if I were, and if I were an Al-Qaeda supporter, and somebody asked me if I supported Al-Qaeda, I would say "No, I love America."
I am not trying to promote bigotry, but you have to balance goodwill and tolerance against prudence and vigilance. Otherwise, we are going to get hit again and the reaction will overcompensate, and then you will really be complaining about how Muslims are being treated.
Those people with the greatest capacity for tolerance also have the greatest capacity for intolerance, and this immoderate disposition will manifest itself under the right conditions. The problem is not tolerance or intolerance; it is being immoderate.
Posted by: Tim at December 5, 2006 10:22 PM
I am not even Muslim, but if I were, and if I were an Al-Qaeda supporter, and somebody asked me if I supported Al-Qaeda, I would say "No, I love America."
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on polls. All we have to do is check the rules of Islam. If they include a requirement to support al Qaeda, then we should certainly place all Muslims under suspicion. Otherwise, we should not.
Otherwise, we are going to get hit again and the reaction will overcompensate, and then you will really be complaining about how Muslims are being treated.
I really don't think you have to convince anyone here that there's a downside to terrorist attacks. I'm pretty sure that's obvious to most Americans. But then, what do I know? I would have also thought it was obvious to most Americans that singling people out because of their religion was antithetical to everything this nation stands for.
I am not a Muslim, but if the government required members of my religion to wear an identifying mark, I would be outraged and, frankly, terrified. That is why if Muslims were required to wear a crescent, I would get myself one and wear it with pride. If we don't stand up for the rights of others, how can we expect anyone to stand up for ours?
Posted by: Beth at December 7, 2006 5:53 PM