The New York Times and The "Angry Blind Arab." Yesterday, I criticized, nay mocked, this article by New York Times' correspondent, NEIL MacFARQUHAR. Today, I received this email from MacFarquhar: "From your comment about the Sunni-Shiite piece, I assume you are recommending that every time I mention a Druse I should point out that he is not a Sunni Muslim? Hopefully the readers know the difference, and every article doesn't need to be a primer on the Sects of the Middle East. Also the Saudi king doesn't appear to be mentioned....." (A different version of his email to me appeared in the comments' section of this site: "The Angry Arab should perhaps be called The Angry Blind Arab. The articlestates clearly that Jumblat is a Druse and assumes enough familiarity on the part of readers that that is different from a Sunni Moslem. It doesn't seem to mention the King of Saudi Arabia anywhere.....
Neil MacFarquhar | 08.05.06 - 3:15 am | #")
Well, o New York Times correspondent. No, my problem was not with the details, but with the very premise. And to say that "hopefully the readers know the difference" is to ignore the kind of damage that the New York Times does daily, especially during times of Middle East crisis, to the very knowledge, wisdom, and information of the public. And of course the public does not know such a thing. We live in a country where the president of the US did not know, according to a recent article, the existence of sects in Islam. And yes, you did not mention the Saudi King. You did not need to--well, you mentioned his comrade the Jordanian King, who is wildly popular--according to the New York Times, among Sunnis, and even among Shi`ites according Richard Perle--do you remember that famous 1996 document? The article was based on the nervousness not of "many Sunnis" but on the nervousness displayed by the King of Saudi Arabia and the King of Jordan. This is the major methodological problem. And to find one or two Sunnis, and the ubiquitous Walid Jumblat who seems to be a regular daily feature of the New York Times these days, is to fit the examples to the premise. And I stand by what I said: that nobody who is reading or watching the Arab media would come out with the conclusion that Sunnis are displaying nervousness about Hizbullah's prominence, your "one Damascus University" professor notwithstanding of course. Well, as for the insertion of Walid Jumblat--and I know how useful he has been for MEMRI and the New York Times--I suggest a merger of the two, by the way--it just does not fit into the article, especially when the headline talks about Sunnis. So yes, the insersion was purely political, although it is possible that you ran out of "nervous Sunnis." As for calling me "Blind Angry Arab": well, I don't consider disabilities to be insulting. But please: feel free to call me names. Oh, Mr. MacFarquhar: one last thing. My mother is a Beiruti Sunni. Does that mean that she is "nervous"? Thanks.