I’ve always liked Martin Bright’s journalism and as a person, but his blog-post in response to all these smears is very, very odd.
For a start, Martin just quotes the offending passages without even pointing out that Hasan is quoting from the Koran. Anyone who doesn’t visit HP and only looks at that blog post doesn’t even get basic context.
Secondly, I can understand the writers at HP not bothering to call up Hasan for his side of the story – they’re not journalists and have an agenda to push. Martin is an experienced journalist and one would at least expect him to offer both sides of the story. No?
Now this is where it gets legally dangerous. Martin files the story under: ‘Islamism , Islamist , Islamists and Radical Islam’. That implies he believes Hasan is an Islamist – something even the smear merchants at HP are not claiming. Perhaps Martin Bright could himself confirm whether he thinks those views should mark Hasan as an Islamist?
And most weirdly, he says Hasan is a “self-styled” Senior Editor. Huh? I know he left the NS under inauspicious circumstances but that stinks of sour grapes.
I say all this also because I know of one prominent think-tanker who sent around an email calling Hasan a “jihadist” – a whole new level of stupidity. Allegations like these can go around the internet like a shot and become the truth if enough people repeat it. And yet only last week Martin was writing about ‘The Importance of Being Libelled‘ to protect his own reputation. So isn’t this a bit hypocritical?
|Post to del.icio.us|
Filed in: Media