Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Publishes Unfair Smear Piece about Tulsi Gabbard
I have long valued the incisive critiques of corporate media bias by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. Imagine my astonishment and disappointment when this organization renowned for its deconstruction and dismantling of propaganda published a propaganda piece of its own, Ari Paul’s article Russia Accusations a Distraction From Gabbard’s Actual Troubling Ties, attacking Congresswoman and Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard for alleged ties to far right Hindu nationalists and Islamophobia. Paul uncritically accepts one after another smear against her, without considering the possibility that there is a coordinated propaganda campaign against her that sources he relies on may be part of.
In general, the article frames the situation in India as analogous to Israel/Palestine; supposedly, “Hindu nationalists,” with current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the BJP party as their leader, are the oppressors and Muslims are the oppressed just as Jews are the oppressors and Palestinians (predominantly Muslims) are the oppressed in Palestine. It then portrays Gabbard as siding with the oppressors in India and as being Islamophobic. The claims about Gabbard are prima facie absurd for anyone remotely familiar with her views or political record (https://jeffmelton.medium.com/bernie-sanders-vs-tulsi-gabbard-a-comparison-2460a9436c61), and the claims about India are distorted and simplistic.
There has been conflict among Hindus, Muslims, specific groups of Hindus or Muslims, and many other groups — often for reasons having nothing to do with religion — throughout the history of India and Pakistan as independent nations (i.e., since 1947). In this article and pieces it links to, this complex history is obliterated and only two incidents involving violence, the 2002 Gujarat riots and the recent conflict in Kashmir, are discussed, and only the role of Hindus or Indian police or military in that violence is mentioned. Certainly there have been acts of violence by the Indian government in the Indian states of Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir, but they have hardly been confined to BJP-led governments.
Recently, an audience member at a Tulsi Gabbard campaign event asked her about the Gujarat riots, in which an estimated 250 Hindus and 800 Muslims were killed (with some estimates pegging the death toll at roughly double that). Several sources have accused Gabbard of condoning the riots in her response to the question. In reality, she merely asked the questioner if she knew how the riots started. She wanted to see if the questioner knew that the riots were sparked by the murder of 59 Hindus by a group of Muslim terrorists (a crime for which 31 people were convicted and sent to prison), and suss out whether the woman knew that the violence in India wasn’t just coming from the Hindu side. It seemed like a fair question to ask under the circumstances, in which the woman seemed to have an agenda of personally attacking Gabbard over her (alleged) views on India.
Modi has been accused of playing a role in instigating or sustaining the riots, but Paul fails to mention that Modi was exonerated of this charge by the Indian Supreme Court. Paul also singles out the BJP as violent and fails to mention that there are human rights violations by the Indian government regardless of which party is in power, as well as failing to mention that India has been victimized by a large number of terrorist attacks, largely from Pakistan-supported Muslim fundamentalists, or to recognize how much of the violence that takes place in India (e.g., in the Gujarat riots) involves conflicts between private citizens rather than being government-initiated. Although clearly the Indian government (whether BJP or Congress) can and should be held responsible for its share of the violence in India, focusing solely on violence perpetrated by the BJP, as Paul does, provides a distorted picture of events in India.
Gabbard has put forth a very clear message of religious tolerance and support for civil liberties, and has backed that up in her legislative record. The notion that she is Islamophobic is utterly absurd, given her opposition to wars in Muslim countries, the fact that she has many Muslim supporters, her being the keynote speaker at the 2017 Muslims for Peace conference, her support for Keith Ellison for DNC chair, her staunch defense of Ilhan Omar in the face of Islamophobic attacks and false accusations of anti-Semitism, and her general message of religious tolerance. She even has a page on “Fighting Islamophobia” on her website. And she has been very careful to distinguish between Islam in general, which she regards positively, and Islamic fundamentalist factions such as the Wahhabi sect, ISIS, etc., which she condemns as bigoted and violent (which they are).
Gabbard has stated on many occasions that she does not support any specific political party, organization, or politician in India, and she met with a variety of political leaders when she was in India, including prominent critics of Modi. And note, also, that in 2014 when she visited India, neither Obama (who met with Modi several times and regarded him as a friend) nor anyone else who met with Modi was smeared as a supposed “supporter of Hindu nationalism,” generally speaking. Though there were isolated attacks on her at the time, it was only after Tulsi provoked the ire of the establishment by quitting the DNC vice chair position, endorsing Bernie Sanders, criticizing the DNC’s election-rigging and bias, and amped up her criticism of the warmongering and corruption of the political establishment, that the anti-Tulsi smear train really picked up steam.
It is simply astonishing to me that this author, given FAIR’s purpose, makes no attempt to investigate who the people who’ve written the pieces it cites are and what their affiliations and political leanings are, and just automatically assumes that the ones he cites in support of his case are on the up and up. He fails to note that Pieter Friedrich, author of the piece in Caravan Magazine that he cites, is a notorious Hinduphobe and right-wing Christian extremist whose parents were missionaries in India. A few sources on Pieter:
https://medium.com/@samir_46682/san-jose-inside-op-ed-elevates-work-of-racist-and-bigot-52067a9bec8f
Here is Pieter’s self-description: https://web.archive.org/web/20040405132111/http://pieterfriedrich.com/aboutpieter/
Here is a rebuttal to Pieter’s article: https://medium.com/@tjmcnulty_79436/debunking-pieter-friedrichs-tulsi-narrative-1085649b2810
The Intercept, another source that Paul relies on heavily, should not be regarded as an unbiased source regarding Gabbard, either. Its owner, billionaire Pierre Omidyar, is a big Democratic Party donor and Hillary Clinton supporter who also happens to be very supportive of the very regime change wars that Gabbard opposes. Tulsi has also been smeared in other publications that he owns, such as Honolulu Civil Beat. (Omidyar is a fellow Hawaii resident.) And smear pieces about Julian Assange and Wikileaks have also been published in The Intercept. So, while Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, co-founder and writer for The Intercept, is great, this notion that Ari Paul seems to have that The Intercept is an inherently credible source is nonsensical.
Here is a direct rebuttal to The Intercept piece that Paul cites: https://medium.com/@ScottStandsWithTruth/tulsi-is-a-rising-star-despite-lies-from-bias-media-78b249af138b
Greenwald himself has interviewed Tulsi at length, and specifically asked her about her position on India as well as about other foreign policy matters, Muslims, etc., starting at about 15 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYgfj0OcHjk
Another good piece rebutting the claims that Tulsi is Islamophobic or supports right wingers in India is here: https://medium.com/@na_rup/exposing-lies-in-zaid-jilanis-article-on-tulsi-gabbard-cdb0e1589e6c
Mainstream media outlets in the US and, at times, independent media outlets as well, have long engaged in smear campaigns against those who dissent from ruling class consensus on US foreign or domestic policies in any significant way, whether it be Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, Julian Assange, Ilhan Omar, or Tulsi Gabbard. Of all organizations on the planet, FAIR is the last place I’d expect to see a piece like this appear. I hope that there will be some sort of effort to correct the mistaken assertions and assumptions in this piece and, beyond that, to document the concerted attack on Tulsi Gabbard that has taken place throughout this Presidential campaign. I would think FAIR would consider it their job.
I’m a social psychologist, copy editor (www.oceaneditors.com), writer, and longtime activist on a plethora of social justice issues. If you like what you’re reading here, please consider supporting my work on Patreon so that I can do more of this. Even $1 will help!
