Today a statement issued by the Vatican has said sorry that the Pope’s speech to an academic audience at Regensburg University, in Germany on Tuesday, was “misinterpreted”. This is not an apology for the content, rather it is an expression of regret for the reception.
Reports of Muslim outrage are still flooding in. Media reports of “anger across the Muslim world” can appear distorted, however. For example, the number of demonstrators in Egypt numbered around a mere 100 people. 100 people only look like a baying mob of thousands if you film them from a certain angle (reports of Middle Eastern “anger” demonstrations are usually shot from low down, looking up into the most upset faces…!)
On the other hand, a number of Muslim scholars and spokespeople and political figures — most notably a unanimous Pakistani parliamentary condemnation of the speech — are very real. And yet this criticism seems to be a response to second-hand information (Turkey is even demanding that the Pope explain the speech). How many of the supposedly “furious” people have actually heard or read a good translation of the speech?
Various factions in Middle Eastern countries have doubtless stoked the fire. Some of these factions are media sources. Their partial translations of the speech will attribute the stand-out soundbite (Mohammad brought only “evil and inhuman things”) directly to the Pope. Meanwhile, many western media sources have focused solely on the fact that the infamous soundbite was from a quote, and have almost entirley ignored the rest of the speech. Now it’s certainly possible to quote another person without asserting the same propositions as the original speaker. But it is also possible to explicitly, or tacitly, agree with a passage that one is quoting.
So where does the truth lie in this instance?
Read the rest of this entry »