Trash Talker Kicked To The Curb

Talk show host Michael Graham fired over anti-Islam remarks

Washington radio station WMAL-AM fired talk show host Michael Graham yesterday after he refused to soften his description of Islam as "a terrorist organization" on the air last month.

Graham had been suspended without pay from his daily three-hour show since making his comments July 25. The station had conditioned his return to the midmorning shift on reading a station-approved statement in which Graham would have said that his anti-Muslim statements were "too broad" and that he sometimes uses "hyperbole" in the course of his program. WMAL also asked Graham to speak to the station's advertisers and its employees about the controversy.

But Graham refused both conditions, prompting the station to drop him.

What does Graham have to say for himself? Let's go to the WingNutDaily:

Graham's suspension stems come from characterizing Islam a "terrorist organization." Graham explained that when a significant minority of a group conducts terrorism and the general population of that group does not denounce it, it is safe to conclude that the group promotes it.

Hmm...so should we assume that because the most extreme and vocal factions of Christianity in America promote bigotry, hatred, misogyny, and even murder, and the "general population" has not risen up with a mighty hand to bitch-slap them into silence, that all Christians "promote" those things?

Gee, maybe Graham doesn't know that Islam doesn't have one leader or council that can speak for the faith as a whole. So maybe when local leaders or groups speak out against terrorism, it just doesn't count as far as he's concerned.

Here's another of his gems, from his Wikipedia entry:

"moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews".

Nice. This guy's a riot and a half.

Needless to say, he's all about the sanctity of free speech NOW, just like any other whiny wingnut who thinks s/he's entitled to a paid forum from which to spew hate. Now if he's got the huge and loyal fan base that he claims to have, surely some other station will feel it vital (and lucrative) to book such a controversial ratings-spiker like him. See, honey, *that's* free speech, that chance that you can be hired somewhere else, if in fact anyone really wants to hear what you have to say. The right to free speech just doesn't go hand in hand with a right to make people care about your opinions.

Of course, this channel still carries Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, sort of the Huginn and Muninn of the Bush administration and the neocons, so the station can't be given too much credit for decency.

Let's finish with another deep thought from Mr. Graham:

Graham said he couldn't accept the idea of apologizing "for the truth..."

Sometimes, you just need to let them speak for themselves.

Comments

[J]

"Hmm...so should we assume that because the most extreme and vocal factions of Christianity in America promote bigotry, hatred, misogyny, and even murder, and the "general population" has not risen up with a mighty hand to bitch-slap them into silence, that all Christians "promote" those things?"

And don't forget that most of the militia movement, including Eric Rudolph and the perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack on US soil other than 9/11, Tim McVeigh, are explicitly Christian.

WMAL is a sad case. Back in the day, it was the home of Willard Scott and the rest of the "Joy Boys," as well as many other fun and entertaining souls who populated talk/variety radio before it was conquered by right-wing hate. Now, it's nothing but Father Coughlin wannabees all day and night.

[KC]

"And don't forget that most of the militia movement, including Eric Rudolph and the perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack on US soil other than 9/11, Tim McVeigh, are explicitly Christian."

Those two "Christians" and Pat Robertson obviously demonstrate that all Christians are evil.

I guess we should find out which churchs, governments, and politics encourage them to commit these acts and hunt them down.

[mr_teem]

I don't agree with what happened here. Graham's complete remarks were: "Because of the mix of Islamic theology that -- rightly or wrongly -- is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion."

It's arguably disrespectful but not hateful and makes an useful point to the (I assume) generally righty audience he speaks to.

The Rudolph and McVeighs and Kopps have been universally repudiated by Chrisitan sects. (Rev. Robertson has the advantage of being wealthy, influential and not having anyone actually take him at his word yet.)

But the issue in this case is speech. WMAL caved to CAIR, an organization whose positions should be taken with a grain of salt in any case. At least, until CAIR actually comes out and specifically denounces violent Islamic terrorism.

[The Mad Hathor]

Mr_Teem, check out: http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1675&theType=NR

It is a statement of CAIR's support for the fatwa against terrorism, religious extremism, and violence. The problem is not that CAIR won't condemn those acts, the problem is whether they are practicing what they preach. I don't know a tremendous amount about them, but I know there's a lot of controversy about their members and alliances.

The points Graham made were not particularly useful because they're based on a bullshit argument-- that all Muslims are complicit in acts of Islamic terrorism because Islam is not structured in such a way to take the particular course of action that he thinks is the only valid rejection of those acts. He compares them to the Boy Scouts, which is just flat out stupid-- the Boy Scouts have a national council that oversees all Boy Scout troops in the country. If the council wants to kick someone out or make a statement about them, it's got some sticking power. But not only does Islam not have one ruling body, different factions don't even agree on what qualifies someone as a legitimate Muslim, and the closest rule they have to excommunication is a judgment whose penalty is traditionally death (which I imagine would make a lot of Muslims living under secular governments and legal systems reluctant to go that route). It's more like if some people who had been acknowledged members of the Wiccan community did some really horrible things in Wicca's name. Well, prominent Wiccan organizations, independent covens, and publications could condemn and distance themselves from those people as much as they wanted to, even declare them not Wiccan, but if those people's coven/org defied that and insisted they *were* Wiccan, what is anyone going to do about it except continue to ostracize them?

In any case, moderate Muslims *have* been condemning terrorism for years, but it's a media war between them and the people who keep insisting that Muslims never decry those acts and demand to know when they will.

Graham admitted in the same speech that he didn't care to educate himself about Islam, and then said, "The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not." I'm sorry, but I find it really irresponsible to suggest to his listeners that finding out *why* there isn't the sort of centrally-authorized excommunication in Islam that he thinks is important doesn't matter, and then implying that if you don't agree with his assessment, maybe there's something suspicious about you, too. Fueling anti-Islam sentiment and tarring all Muslims with the same brush on a BS premise is a disingenuous way to claim to want an end to violence.

Incidentally, he acknowledged in the same statement that what he was saying could cost him his radio job. So he knew exactly what he was getting into and did it anyway.

Bottom line, regardless of why the station made their decision, and whether it was just or not, *it was their decision to make*. They aren't obligated to air any show, no matter why they wanted to cancel it. Look, when Howard Stern got kicked off of Clear Channel for cursing, I thought that was a total crap reason and I thought Clear Channel were a bunch of priggish assholes, but I still thought they had a right to do it, just like I had a right to stop listening to Clear Channel radio after that (well, if I did in the first place).

If the CAIR pressure was unfair, then the best way to combat it would have been for all the wingnuts in the audience to do a counter-campaign saying "We would like to have our narrow-minded ideas about the world reinforced by our radio personalities and we, as your actual audience, think you should keep Graham on the air," as I'm sure at least some did. And if WMAL thought it was more worthwhile to listen to those people, they'd have kept Graham, just as Kraft did not end up pulling its support for the Gay Games despite the campaign from the Christian right to do just that, when apparently enough gay-friendly folks counter-campaigned and told Kraft that they supported the decision. This time, Graham lost, and this time I say it's good riddance to bad rubbish.