THE PEACE AND JUSTICE FOUNDATIONo:p>

11160 Viers Mill Rd, Ste L-15, PMB 298

Silver Spring, MD. 20902

21 Muharram 1426

(March 2, 2005)

The Case of Ahmed Abu Ali and “Yellow [Political] Journalism”

Yellow journalism is described by Encarta: World English Dictionary as, “a style of journalism that makes unscrupulous use of scandalous, lurid, or sensationalized stories to attract readers.” [The term appears to derive from the yellow ink of the Yellow Kid cartoons that appeared in the late 19th century’s sensationalistic New York World.] The modern day equivalent of “yellow journalism” would probably be the off-beat newspapers, or “rags,” as some prefer to call them, which often bear lurid, sensationalistic headlines at the friendly neighborhood supermarket counter.

An article that appeared on the front page of the Washington Post today brought to mind a different type of “yellow journalism” - yellow political [or politicized] journalism. What do I mean by this?

I received a call today from someone who in our initial conversation concerning the latest developments in the case of Ahmed Abu Ali appeared to accept the government’s claim against him. Now this was coming from a Muslim who normally has a guarded mistrust of the government and its agents (esp. politicians), and who is generally sensitive toward the plight of fellow Muslims. After I hung up the phone I wondered, what was it about the article that this Muslim read that left this kind of impression. I then resolved to get a copy of the paper and do my own analysis of the article. This is what I found.

In an article captioned, “N. Va. Man Admitted Terror Plot, Agent Says,” (March 2, 2005, Washington Post), I found eight paragraphs (which included the first six) that were solidly pro-government; three paragraphs that were pro-defendant; and seven paragraphs which could be described as neutral. After doing this analysis, I immediately understood why the sister’s initial reaction was as it was. As the saying goes, “the first impression is the lasting impression.”

The first two paragraphs of the report reads as follows: “A federal judge denied bail yesterday for an American student charged in an alleged conspiracy to kill President Bush after an FBI agent testified that the man had admitted plotting with al Qaeda to conduct a September 11-style terror attack in the United States. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23, of Falls Church, told FBI agents that he and other members of an al Qaeda cell in Saudi Arabia planned to hijack airplanes overseas and crash them into targets on the East Coast, according to testimony. They also discussed plans to kill members of Congress, blow up ships in US ports and aircraft at US military bases, and free terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, FBI counterterrorism agent Barry Cole told a federal judge in Alexandria.”

Let’s see. In the first two paragraphs we have references to a conspiracy to kill the president, “Sept. 11th style attacks,” plans to kill members of Congress, blow up ships and aircraft, and free those damn “terrorists” at Guantanamo Bay! This is some heavy stuff to get beyond. And the truth is that most readers, including your average Muslim, can’t.

For most readers who read this particular article (or articles like this one, online or in newspapers around the country), their mind was already made up by the time they got to the more neutral or defendant friendly paragraphs. (And their conclusion, no doubt, was that the judge did the right thing by denying bail to such a dangerous predator in our midst.) Truth be told, however, Judge Liam O’Grady’s decision to deny bail to the defendant had nothing to do with Abu-Ali being a “danger to the community,” nor a “flight risk.”

Judge O’Grady, once again demonstrating the capitulation of the US Judiciary in the so-called “War on Terrorism,” made a political decision to deny bail to a young man who was most deserving of some type of long overdue consideration, from a government (his own government) that had repeatedly failed him during the 20 month period that he was locked up and tortured by a foreign [US friendly] government! case.

This Washington Post article, reportedly authored by Jerry Markon, exemplifies a different type of yellow journalism; yellow [political] journalism. One wonders if Markon, like conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, has also been on the government’s payroll.

El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan

Director of Operations

The Peace And Justice Foundation

(permission is given to reprint all or part of this commentary with the appropriate attribution.)