Here’s the header of today’s “Media” section on PuffHo; click to go to the article by Gabriel Arana, “Five ways journalists can avoid Islamophobia in their coverage“:

Arana’s view is that the media in general has “far too often served to spread misinformation and perpetuate prejudice” against Muslims. I’m not so sure that’s true; in fact, the opposite seems to be the case, though of course I read mostly left-wing media. Certainly President Obama has bent over backwards not only to tell Americans not to demonize Muslims (to his credit) but also has pointedly avoided mentioning Islam as a cause of terrorism (not to his credit). And opinion-forming papers like the New York Times and Washington Post almost never implicate religion as a cause of terrorism, and constantly publish editorials telling Americans to avoid “Islamophobia,” which I construe as “demonizing Muslims rather than the tenets of their faith.”

Arana, in fact, is promoting “Islamophilia,” which I take to mean “an unwarranted respect for the tenets of Islam.”

Arana’s advice, then, is mostly to avoid mentioning Islam, be sure to visit a mosque if you’re a journalist (noting that “Islamic leaders across the country have graciously opened their doors to help the public better understand their faith“, although of course they’re going to reassure everyone that Islam is a religion of peace), and be sure to profile only those who whitewash both the nasty tenets of Islam and avoid mentioning the “I word”. Here are three of the five tips (the last is “provide context”:

2. Be Careful Whose Views You Give A Platform To

Among the more harmful misconceptions about the role of media is that it’s our duty to provide “balance” and let the audience decide between opposing points of view. In some instances — say, if lawmakers are debating between a cap-and-trade system and a carbon tax as ways to reduce air pollution — this template for fair coverage makes sense.

But far too often, “balance” in news coverage has meant providing a platform for ideologues to spew racist garbage. 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.

Do not even show Pamela Geller!  She might corrupt viewers who are unable to think for themselves. Yes, she may be a bigot, but shouldn’t her views about Islam at least be considered, especially in view of Arana’s next piece of advice, which is to show someone about as odious?:

3. Challenge Prejudice And Debunk Outright Lies

The reason it’s so important for journalists to arm themselves with information is not only so they themselves make sure not to perpetuate prejudice, it’s also so they can challenge it when they’re confronted with it.

One of the reasons it’s so compelling to watch religious scholar Reza Aslan parry with pundits and television anchors is that he’s unafraid to identify outright lies and misconception and challenge them with information. For instance, when confronted with the idea that Islam is inherently degrading to women, Aslan points out that Muslim-majority countries have elected female heads of state seven times. The U.S.? Zero.

Yep, trot out the old charlatan Reza Aslan, the American equivalent of Karen Armstrong. For you know he’ll assure you that there is nothing bad about Islam.

But if Aslan’s right, and Muslim-majority countries are so much more congenial to women than, say, the U.S. or Western Europe, ask an American woman if she’d rather live here or in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq. Reza Aslan is just as much a whitewasher of Islam as Geller is a blackwasher.

Finally, DO NOT MENTION ISLAM!:

4. Choose Your Words Carefully

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.

To that end, some outlets have argued for the use of the Arabic acronym “Daesh” instead of the Islamic State (also called ISIS). The idea is to avoid implying that what the terrorists have created in Syria and Iraq is an actual “state” or actually “Islamic.” Another option is to use a qualifier like the “self-described” Islamic State.

There’s no conflation here: “Islamic terrorism” means terrorism motivated by the tenets of Islam. What’s the conflation? And what advantage does the term “religious extremists” have over that? In fact, they have completely different meanings: “Islamic terrorism” is death and destruction motivated largely by Islam, while “religious extremism” means simply the tails of the distribution of religious belief, such as Christian fundamentalism or violent Islamism. “Terrorism” is not the same as “extremism”: it’s the subset of extremism that kills and injures people.

Although some of Arana’s advice can be useful, in the main his thrust is to portray Islam only in a good light. Behind it is the ardent desire to avoid all criticism of Islam. And again I raise the question: if religions can, as many aver, motivate people to do good things, why can’t they motivate people to do bad things? I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to that simple query.