PBS won't let the general public watch "Islam vs. Islamists," however blogger Roger Simon has seen it and was quite impressed:
I have to admit the first thing that attracted me to Martyn Burke’s “Islam vs. Islamists” was that PBS had suppressed it. As is now well known, the Public Broadcasting network rejected Burke’s documentary - produced with Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev for the network’s “American Crossroads” series - on the film’s completion. PBS’ initial explanation for this blackballing was that the film was not good enough, aesthetically.
Well, yes, I thought when I heard that; that could be. Most things are. As a filmmaker I know that well. Not to my credit, I am usually especially hard on my fellows’ work – and on my own. Only one of the films I have written – Enemies, A Love Story – can I even watch today. Most PBS documentaries I find so stultifying I would rather read the phone book. The network has yet to produce its own "Nanook of the North," to put it mildly.
So I assumed the criticism of Burke’s film was valid. Still, I was curious. I had not been entirely satisfied with previous documentaries I had seen on related subjects – "Islam: What the West Needs to Know and Obsession" – because, like Al Gore’s global warming film, they were made in the old-fashioned didactic style of the conventional documentary that always teeters on the edge of propaganda or special pleading. I assumed "Islam vs. Islamists" would be like that.
Boy was I wrong. Burke’s doc is a riveting and creatively made film about the most important subject of our time: what to do about radical Islam? It confronts this dilemma in a sly, novelistic manner, inter-weaving the stories of good, moderate Muslims with the Imams and supposedly “true Muslims” who, not surprisingly, accuse the moderate Muslims of not being Muslims at all. Soon enough we learn these Imams are apologists for terrorism and for the worst kind of medieval religious sadism. (One of them enthusiastically endorses the stoning to death of adulterers by holding up a Koran. “I didn’t make this up,” he says proudly. “It is written here.”) The mostly mild-mannered moderate Muslims are shown to be at risk for the lives, some of them accompanied everywhere by bodyguards.
Read the rest.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's really sad that the Co
May 12, 2007 - 16:31 ET by daveinbocaIt's really sad that the Conservatives lack a sugar-daddy like Soros who lavishes his groupies with start-up funding and whatever under the table stuff this convicted felon [in France] can get away with.
The Inquisition erected by leftist retards at PBS---where I worked as an Associate and Assistant Producer on two productions---is becoming more and more apodictic. Torquemada would be proud of Soros and his army of orcs.
Hello DaveInBoca, I don't kno
May 12, 2007 - 16:38 ET by VT Con ManHello DaveInBoca, I don't know what apodictic means, but it sounds like what the current state of affairs at PBS would be. How utterly leftist of them to restrict this film from our, citizen paid for, network. Outrageous.
And, Soros can dabble with his millions/billions all he wants, he will not change the will of Americans to be free and live in a free market society, as much as he tries.
PBS? I think I've heard of
May 12, 2007 - 16:40 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsPBS? I think I've heard of them.
Palestinian Broadcasting Network?
Propaganda Broadcasting Network?
Sheesh.
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
Another acronym
May 12, 2007 - 16:51 ET by goldenthroatDFTT, How about "Pelosi Bull S**t" ?
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
Outrageous!
May 12, 2007 - 16:59 ET by RJThanks for this, Matthew. This is outageous! The "Freethefilm" petition can be signed at http://www.freethefilm.net/ and the email address of one of the two censors responsible for holding the film back, Leo Eaton, is eatoncreative@eatoncreative.com He's British-born and his bio makes it clear that he sees himself as an internationalist, meaning he knows better than we dumb American-born hicks. The email address of the other censor wasn't available. I sent the following:
HOW DARE YOU, MR. EATON?
How dare you censor, for obvious political reasons, the film, "Islam vs. Islamists?" How dare you hide behind the lie that it has low production standards? How dare you suppress free speech while feeding at the tit of taxpayer money? How dare you behave as do the most cynical of Communist, Socialist or Facist governments? How dare you practice thought control because it doesn't fit your ideology?
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! HOW DARE YOU?
Thanks for that link RJ.D
May 13, 2007 - 08:50 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThanks for that link RJ.
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
It's interesting that a fil
May 12, 2007 - 18:37 ET by GregEIt's interesting that a film which is supposed to show the moderate Muslims speaking up is being put in the closet because it's more important to hide any showing of Islamic radicals in a bad light.
Isn't it the liberal who is all about tolerance? So why not let America see for themselves that there are Muslims who are completely against the Islamic radicalism? Will this not promote more tolerance of moderate Islam? Is PBS so in the tank with Islamic radicalism that the moderates in a good light is trumped because a film would also show Islamists in a bad light? Is PBS protecting the Islamists from getting an even worse reputation? Gee we wouldn't want that now would we? Might make Americans see more of an urgency and cause a few more Americans to support going after their sorry arses. Oh no no no, we can't have that mess! That's not anti-Bush, and lord knows anything that could cause someone to maybe see Bush in any inkling of a good light has to be out of the question.
The liberal mind is truly a diseased mind, one that is too diseased to realize its illness.
Anti-US
May 13, 2007 - 04:59 ET by AgnosticIMHO, it is more important to the liberals to keep the public questioning the direction and the leadership of the US by showing only those who speak against the US than the actual promotion of Radical Islam. With government leadership changing in Canada, Germany and now France in the last 5 years it is getting progressively more difficult to find anti-American quotes the press so love in foreign governments. If the press was to give quality coverage to what is going on in African, Persian and Arabic countries they would seriously damage the "US is Bad" mantra that is prerequisite for a Republican President regardless of whether the administration is actually conservative or not.