In spite of attempts to shame the press, the relative lack of media attention to the bombings in Istanbul is more like the lack of interest in the murder of Christians in Nigeria than it is anything else.

There seems to be a reoccurring trend on the political left that whenever there is an opportunity to address the threat of radical Islam, they instead cry ‘Islamophobia!’ What this does is shift the blame from the perpetrator to the victim, and that is dangerous. This complacent attitude creates the atmosphere that has allowed radical Islam to flourish and spread around the world. A recent article in the left wing Huffington Post titled Coverage of the Istanbul Bombing Proves Once Again That American Media Care Little About Muslim Lives reveals this Muslim victimization approach which plays into the narrative of the left. The author, Dean Obeidallah, a political comedian with Palestinian and Italian roots, scolds the American media for its lack of concern about Muslims. His evidence is the alleged scarcity of coverage regarding the Istanbul incident. Obeidallah discusses some of the disparities in the mainstream media’s coverage of the Brussels incident compared to Istanbul, describing the day after the Istanbul attack:

…there appeared to be little to no anchors there from major American media outlets on the streets of Turkey. We didn’t witness an outpouring of touching stories about those lost or detailed profiles about the heroism of the several Turkish police officers killed in the attack. And as the day wore on, Istanbul became just one of many big stories covered in the news.

Then Obeidallah claims, “The message sent by the American media, intentionally or not, is that when there’s an attack on a nation like Turkey that is 99 percent Muslim and the victims are primarily Muslim, it simply isn’t that important.”

There’s no question countries in the West receive preferential treatment in the news media. However, drawing the conclusion that it is because of the media’s ‘anti-Muslim’ bias is baseless. How about the lack of coverage when radical Islamic Fulani herdsmen slaughtered hundreds of Christians in Nigeria in a matter of weeks (February and March of 2016)? Where was the coverage in May 2016 when some reports said at least 34 Christians were fatally hacked by Islamic militants in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Does that necessarily mean the media is anti-Christian or anti-African? No, not exactly. Perhaps the Brussels attack received so much attention because the city is the capital of the EU, and Western Europe has been a relatively stable area unlike Turkey where terrorist attacks either from Kurdish separatists or Turkish militants aren’t out of the ordinary.

Obeidallah goes on a rant about how the media doesn’t pick-up stories on “right-wing” schemes to murder Muslim Americans. Maybe this is because there isn’t a large, well-connected right-wing anti-Muslim movement engaged in slaughtering and exterminating Muslims. Maybe it is because Islamic terrorists orchestrated the Orlando, San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Boston, Fort Hood, 9/11, and many other attacks which have between them killed thousands of innocent Americans. Perhaps that affects the media climate somewhat.

Obeidallah then poses a couple of questions:

Is the lack of media coverage because there’s an empathy gap for Muslims lives? Or is it that the media executives simply believe Americans don’t care and won’t watch stories about Muslims killed by terror attacks?

He answers these questions by stating, “It’s not clear, but considering the news is a business, I’d suspect the second reason is more at play.” In saying this he is essentially switching the blame from the media to the American public since “media executives” are just making business decisions based upon an anti-Muslim consumer base. If there is a current wave of anti-Muslim sentiment, one way to reduce such attitudes is for media figures like Obeidallah to quite coddling Islamist groups like the Hamas linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which give Muslims a bad name. CAIR is the same group Obeidallah helped fundraise for in the linked video. Obeidallah’s actions help blur the line between moderate Muslims and Islamists.

Obeidallah makes the claim that Muslims are the largest victims of the Islamic State, which may be true, but goes on to say “we Muslims are united in fighting ISIS since the terrorists are slaughtering Muslims daily.” Even though the vast majority of Muslims don’t support ISIS, why is it that ISIS is able to recruit from Muslim communities around the world, from the Maghreb to Southeast Asia, if they are only just a few radicals?

Pew Research conducted a 2015 survey about Muslim attitudes toward ISIS from countries that have large Muslim populations. Despite, most countries only having a small fraction of their population giving a favorable rating to ISIS, those numbers when added up are quite large. Take Pakistan whose population for 2015 was about 188 million people (conservative estimate, rounded down), 9% gave a favorable answer of ISIS on the survey which is almost 17 million ISIS sympathizers in the country. Also, in Pakistan only 28% held an unfavorable view of ISIS on the survey, while 62% didn’t have an opinion. It makes one wonder how many other potential jihadists can be won over to their cause in Pakistan alone.

Then at the end of the article Obeidallah again implicitly faults the American public for anti-Muslim sentiment. Instead of playing the victim and continuing to propagate the ‘Islamophobia’ narrative, figures like Obeidallah need to start exposing the Islamists and jihadists. Individuals with a platform like Obeidallah need to use it to combat jihad, not regurgitate liberal talking points which in turn allow radical jihadists to operate.