Monday, May 15, 2017


Simply tweeting video of a Muslim student characterizing his religion on an interfaith panel cost me my job

Andy Ngo

Last month, I attended an interfaith panel discussion, “Unpacking Misconceptions,” at Portland State University, where I’m a political-science graduate student. I ended up being fired as the multimedia editor of our student newspaper, the Vanguard, for tweeting about what was said there.

Much of the discussion was uncontroversial. The students on the panel mainly shared complaints of what they perceived as misconceptions about their religions. A Hindu student lampooned author Reza Aslan for his depiction of Hinduism on CNN’s Believer, which showed a minority sect’s practice of eating human flesh.

A Jewish student said most Jews don’t have payot, the side curls worn by some Orthodox Jewish men. An atheist student spoke on behalf of a secular-humanist worldview and challenged the audience to think about how we as a society can develop our own moral framework without religion.

At one point, a woman in the audience asked the Muslim student if a specific verse in the Koran actually permitted the killing of non-Muslims. “I can confidently tell you, when the Koran says an innocent life, it means an innocent life, regardless of the faith, the race, like, whatever you can think about as a characteristic,” he began.

At this point, I took out my mobile phone and began recording as he continued: And some, this, that you’re referring to, killing non-Muslims, that [to be a non-believer] is only considered a crime when the country’s law, the country is based on Koranic law — that means there is no other law than the Koran. In that case, you’re given the liberty to leave the country, you can go in a different country, I’m not gonna sugarcoat it. So you can go in a different country, but in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave].

Although I was not there officially as a reporter to cover the event, I shared a 40-second snippet of the video on my personal Twitter account, with a message that conveyed my understanding of the speaker’s meaning — namely, that non-Muslims would be killed or banished in a state governed by Koranic law

I later posted a longer version of the video in a follow-up tweet to provide more context.  This longer video includes a response by someone in the audience who disagreed with the speaker, saying it was “perfectly okay for non-Muslims to live in Muslim lands.” The audience member cited the existence of religious-minority communities in the Middle East as an example of Islamic tolerance.

Four days later, the editor-in-chief of my school newspaper called me into a meeting. The paper’s managing editor was also present. They asked me about a Breitbart piece describing the event. It was the first time I’d seen the piece, which included my tweets and a tweet from one of the panelists.

My editor, whom I deeply respected at the time, called me “predatory” and “reckless,” telling me I had put the life and well-being of the Muslim student and his family at risk. She said that my tweets implied the student advocated the killing of atheists. Another person in the meeting said I should have taken into account the plight of victimized groups in the “current political climate.” The editor claimed I had “violated the paper’s ethical standards” by not “minimizing harm” toward the speaker.

As far as I’m concerned, the job of any reporter is to report facts, and that’s what I was doing when I tweeted about the panel. All these accusations were shocking to me. Moments after publishing the original video, I shared the tweet with the editor and a Vanguard reporter who was at the event. Neither of them expressed any outrage in response back then.

The tweets apparently only became “predatory” and “reckless” when conservative sites picked up on them. In my defense, I told the two editors that I had simply been relating the speaker’s words.

While dozens of Muslim states do not consider apostasy or blasphemy a crime, 13 Muslim-majority countries punish these actions with death. The speaker was admitting as much, and as someone who has covered the persecution of atheists and apostates in Muslim countries, I considered that newsworthy.

Nevertheless, my editor turned to me and said, “We have to ask you to step aside.” She said I had “a history” of affiliation with conservative media, and argued that that history was toxic to the “reputation of the Vanguard.”

The Vanguard rejected my original idea for this piece when I pitched it to them, citing concerns that it would cause the unnamed Muslim panelist further distress.

For my own part, I remain baffled by my former editors’ reasoning. As far as I’m concerned, the job of any reporter is to report facts, and that’s what I was doing when I tweeted about the panel. I find it distressing that I could be fired for continuing to uphold that mission when the facts in question are liable to make people uncomfortable, as facts often are.

Much like the student I spoke to that evening at the panel, I was disinclined to sugarcoat the truth. I just couldn’t have imagined it would cost me so dearly.

SOURCE


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

So if you ae an atheist and don't support the discrimination and prejudice in Islamic countries you can be sacked for exposing the truth. How the F*** does that work? What agenda are these people pushing that should be shut down immediately? It is time that this BS stopped once and for all.

Anonymous said...

I simply cannot figure why there is such a determination to turn a blind eye to the realities of Islam even when Muslims make it perfectly plain what that is, both by clear statements and acts of violence and intimidation. Is it simply fear of what was done by letting the Genie out of the bottle (by the naive acceptance of Muslims into Western societies as just "another" minority religion), and the hope the Genie will somehow meekly slip back into the bottle if not too provoked??

Anonymous said...

The genie will never go back into the bottle. The whole purpose of an Islamic diaspora is to undermine and outgrow the western societies they infiltrate. They have the momentum of population to destroy western society and are well positioned to do so within the next 20 years without the planned refugee exodus from Muslim countries that will continue with the current wars.

Dean said...

"As far as I’m concerned, the job of any reporter is to report facts, . . ."

As a reporter that is his job. Unfortunately, there are many in the liberal camp who do not want facts that contravene their basic beliefs or philosophy. They are willing to ignore reality even if doing so endangers their way of life, or that of others.

Kudos to Mr. Ngo for revealing what was said. It is also to his credit that he added information as to a number of Islamic countries do not issue the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy, although thirteen such countries do.

His reporting accurate, and fair to all involved.

I find it interesting that a good part of the reason he was fired was his suspected dealings with conservative organizations. Apparently the Vanguard and Portland State University are so afraid off Conservative contamination they will do anything to keep their liberal progeny pure.

Bird of Paradise said...

Just another liberal run University that needs its budget cut by 100% like U.C. Berkeley