Arana begins his article by criticizing the notion of a balanced media.

He calls the assumption that the media are “supposed to provide balance” and “opposing views” a “harmful misconception.” Letting the “audience decide” leads to giving “Islamophobic” bigots air-time to mislead “millions of viewers,” Arana wrote.

“[F]ar too often,” he exclaimed, “‘balance’ in news coverage has meant providing a platform for ideologues to spew racist garbage."

"In short: Don’t give bigotry a platform," he scolded. [emphasis added]

But the Huffington Post’s own bigotry revealed itself when Arana cited the left-wing hate group Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on “Islamophobic” (code for “conservative”) hate groups.

“Inviting Islamophobic activists like Pamela Geller, whose organization is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center , on your network to ‘balance out’ the views of a Muslim scholar is not serving to inform the public. It implicitly communicates that these views should have equal weight, which they shouldn't, and gives Gellar access to millions of viewers.”

Arana then claimed that there was not enough room at the table for everyone to discuss political issues and that television producers needed to be more discerning about which conservative guests they invite on the air.

“When television producers are assembling the members of a panel, they are setting the terms of the debate -- and whom they include in the conversation matters.”

But that’s not all the instruction Arana dispensed. Not only are dissenting opinions forbidden, but also certain language should be kept off-air.

Arana urged that “Islam” shouldn’t appear in rhetoric discussing terrorism. Instead, he suggested, the terms “violent radicals” or “religious extremists” are more “precise” and fair, referencing a primer put out by the Obama Administration that warned media against using the words “jihadist” “Islamic” or “Islamist.”

“When journalists use phrases like ‘Islamic terrorism,’ they are implicitly conflating two concepts. While this term is in common use, it is the duty of those of us in the media to be more precise in our use of language than the general public. We should refer to violent radicals like the ones who carried out the attacks in Paris as what they are: religious extremists.”

Getting to his third point, Arana stressed that the media also need to foster friendship with Islam through personal connections with Muslims before they can report fairly. He told journalists that they “must cultivate personal relationships” with Muslims, calling it “the greatest antidote to prejudice there is.” He continued: “The tenor of the coverage of Muslims and the Islamic world would be far better if each member of the media had a close friend who practiced the faith.”

What’s ironic about this “suggestion” is that with the proliferation of Christians in the United States, somehow journalists still can’t find “friends” of that faith – or if they have, their reporting surely doesn’t reveal it. So, again, how would this help Islam’s image?

No matter, Arana’s got the perfect comparison: gays coming out of the closet. If more Muslims, like their gay predecessors, were more visible in the public’s eye, then tolerance would follow, Arana proposed.

Does that mean Hollywood should add a Muslim character to every sitcom? Because the lack of a Muslim “Modern Family” is most likely not what’s hindering Islam’s public image problem right now.