Sleight of Hand

Submitted by Robin Dienstman (United States), Dec 7, 2004 at 19:18

If one reads only CAIR's version of this story and The Washington Times article about these events, you come away believing that Mr. Pipes and Mr. Schanzer are "Muslim critics..." and "prominent U.S. critic[s] of Islam" who made observations of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli remarks by Prof. Card, on some sort of whim.

CAIR and the Times article report all the facts, except the ones from the perspective of Mr. Pipes and Mr. Schanzer. While both CAIR and the Times publish statements saying that both Pipes and Schanzer no longer believe that Card is anti-Semitic, neither of these two sources discusses his threat against Mr. Pipes' reputation, nor Card's statement that was one of the conditions of the settlement, which is discussed in Mr. Pipes' article. If one ever doubted that the news media was biased, one need only do a little research on this small event to get a good picture of how by "sleight of hand" leaving out all or some of the facts changes the whole meaning of any story.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".