Just how deaf has the Washington press corps become? Princeton’s world famous scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, gave a landmark speech Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute’s annual dinner. Warning that the 14-century-long struggle between Christianity and Islam is entering a new phase, in which radical Islamists have found a sense of identity and purpose, while we are losing our own to self-denigration and self-abasement, Lewis cited as one example the Pope apologizing last year for the crusades. Lewis urged us to have a little sense of proportion, and went on to say — and it was an illuminating line — “The crusade was a late, limited and unsuccessful imitation of the jihad.”
(Repeat: “unsuccessful” was what Lewis said).
But that’s not how Wall Street Journal reporter Neil King Jr. described it. On the Journal’s Washington Wire blog site, under the absurdly misleading headline “Bernard Lewis Applauds the Crusades,” King misquoted Lewis as having described the crusades as “a late, limited and successful imitation of the jihad.”
This has already begun spawning commentary in the blogosphere, slamming Lewis for something that is the opposite of what he actually said.
I was at the dinner, but did not get around to reading the Journal’s Washington Wire until this morning. It was so outrageously at odds with what I remembered, and with my own notes on Lewis’s speech, that I phoned Bernard Lewis today to check. He confirmed that he was in no way defending the crusades: “I said their behavior was atrocious,” and that he in no way described them as a success, but quite explicitly as “unsuccessful.” He added — and the rest of his almost one-hour speech provides rich and important context for this response — “What I did say was that apologizing for them was absurd.”
That is very different from the bizarre headline and quote on the March 8 Washington Wire.
What would not be absurd, what would in fact be entirely appropriate, would be an apology and correction from the Journal, a newspaper that prides itself on accurate reporting and states on its web site that the Washington Wire is “among the most venerated products of the Journal’s Washington bureau.” Surely the Journal’s readers deserve an accurate account of a major Washington speech by a man who is not only one of the great modern scholars of Islam, but also a staunch champion of human decency, dignity and freedom — in any part of the globe.
AEI has not yet posted a transcript (though when they do, it will probably appear here). For those who wish to check the delivery, as well as listen to Lewis’s richly grounded, clearly articulated and vitally important message, C-Span 2 is airing Bernard Lewis’s AEI speech at 2 PM today, and we can hope they might post a link to the video.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
7 Comments
1. Stephen:Is there any lower life form than a ‘reporter’? Bernard Lewis is, if anything, overly generous towards islam. He regards those periods when Jews were allowed to live as dhimmis under Islam as wonderful times. Few were beheaded. Still, he recognizes the danger posed by currend day Islamic jihadis.
Mar 11, 2007 - 8:18 pm 2. Econ-Scott:I think Vik Rubenfeld at “The Big Picture Blog” said it best in
The REASON(S) for the Crusades –
http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/comments/reasons_for_the_crusades
It is hard to imagine that the competing European Powers couldn’t set aside their hatred of each other long enough to extinguish the Piracy and Slavery. Same old rivalries in force today, Until finally U.S. elects another Jefferson and Madison …
Mar 11, 2007 - 8:22 pm 3. Roger L. Simon:Interestingly, as of 8:40PM Pacific time, the WSJ site has not been corrected. Not very impressive editing.
Mar 11, 2007 - 11:41 pm 4. Jed West:It is mistake to fall all over ourselves castigating the WSJ for giving the impression that Lewis found some positive in the Crusades. In spite of the atrocities, the Crusades were in sum a very positive event for Western Civilization in that they did have the effect of impeding the Jihad which cutting a bloody swath across the known world at the time. This may not politically correct, but it is historically correct.
Mar 12, 2007 - 1:49 am 5. PointOfLaw Forum:OT: Bernard Lewis at the AEI Dinner
Jacob Weisberg makes much of a single sentence in Bernard Lewis’s one-hour-plus address at the AEI Annual Dinner, which I attended last week. In a lengthy disquisition of the history of Islam’s relationship with the Western world, Lewis spent a…
Mar 15, 2007 - 12:18 pm 6. David Nicholas:This is one of those things that can cause all sorts of controversy, and it’s frankly unfair to Bernard Lewis. Lewis is a wonderful scholar of the Middle East who’s been accused of being both pro- and anti-Muslim, while in actuality being pretty objective. I would suggest that the WSJ issue an immediate retraction, and apologize too. I would imagine the retraction will (has already) come, but I don’t expect much of an apology.
Mar 15, 2007 - 11:20 pm 7. Duke:Claudia, I know you write for the Journal EDITORIAL pages and I have no quarrel with them. However, as a financial guy with deep involvement in markets, I have to tell you that the Journal “News” pages have been questionable sources at best for a long time. They are never to be relied on for accuracy of the truth. Those pages, like the rest of the MSM, are staffed by agenda driven journalism majors who are more interested in “changing the system” than in accurate reporting. I liken the Journal to the movie industry rags, Variety and Hollywood Reporter, that “report” whatever it is that they decide is news and it’s up to the reader to fathom what it is that is really going on. I only use IBD for actual investment info as well as the naked reporting on Bloomberg. Does anyone take CNBC’s chattering laughing girls seriously? MSM journalism is lousy all over.
Mar 17, 2007 - 7:51 am