Dr Brian Levin appeared on FNC and the Outfoxed gals wrote a slimy hit piece. But the good doctor refused to take their smears lying down.

When the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed gang) published a typically distorted and false "report" on a Shepard Smith interview, we exposed their lies and fabrications. But unfortunately for the anti-Fox terriers, Mr Smith's guest, Dr Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, didn't take kindly to being smeared and confronted newspup Donna. Given the curs' penchant for deleting inconvenient messages that document their lies, we will preserve the exchange here. Dr Levin has some interesting and important points to make about the Patriot Act and terrorism, but his thoughts on his experiences with Fox News and how the Fox-haters have turned to character assassination will be of special interest to the readers of this journal. [We will continue to update this entry if the colloquy continues, assuming we get to the comments before Donna can get to the "delete" key.]:

Dear Friends: I am the subject of this thread and just wanted to say a few things. The Patriot Act is a huge document and it does in fact enable the government to do certain things that I am concerned about. For an entity that accusses others of distortions- I find your headline to be misleading at best as I am not a primary cheerleader for the Patriot Act. However, certain key provisions relating to terror financing, rolling wiretaps, sneak and peak warrents (which were already approved by federal courts), nationwide warrants, the exchange of information on terrorism between prosecutors and FISA investigations have helped authorities.

My point about lowering the bar relates to the last point, that is that since 1978 a rigid legal wall existed that prevented any information from foreign surv. investigations from being used in criminal cases. The Patriot Act allowed this information to be given to prosecutors so they can indict alleged terrorists (i.e. lowering the required evidentiary bar). Read Dr. Al Arian's indictment--it's chilling. Perhaps, there needs some tinkering on this provision, but I think it is within the realm of reasonable debate.

Also, let me note that many things that people blame on the Patriot Act are from other places. The 1996 ATAEDPA Act was the genesis of the material support doctrine, Gitmo was justified through a DOD order approved by the President, and the initial detention of people after 9/11 mainly involved holding people on material witness or immigration grounds.

However, I am not naive enough to believe that all the powers and discretion granted under the Patriot Act are needed or being used appropriately. The key here is that we need an intelligent discussion of individual provisions and not merely partisan flamethrowing. The Patriot Act must be narrowly tailored in its construction and application. Most importantly,these powers must be unambiguously limited to terrorism cases. I think more people know details about the Michael Jackson case than about the Patriot Act and I think its good that FNC gave me the opportunity to discuss it. Our Center is non-partisan, by the way.

Regards, Prof. Brian Levin
Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism
Posted by: Brian Levin at April 20, 2005 11:08 AM

Mr. Blevin [sic], Thanks for responding to our website. As author of this story, I can tell you that nothing was misleading. The story that Fox told under the banner of 'Remembering Oklahoma City' was misleading. The story you discussed with Shepard Smith did not reflect on 'remembering Oklahoma City', it concentrated on terrorism through the internet and the Patriot Act.

You may not be a fan of the Patriot Act, but when you appear on Fox and proclaim, 'God Bless Bill O'Reilly', you 'do' appear partisan. This is the image that goes out to viewers.

I did give you credit for wanting the Patriot Act limited and corrected a word that was not used (wall instead of bar), but I see that you do use the word 'bar' in your letter here.

For someone being so familiar with the Patriot Act, I would recommend that you use your knowledge on other venues besides Fox and refrain from the 'God Bless Bill O'Reilly's' if you want to be taken seriously.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to our website. Donna
Posted by: Donna at April 20, 2005 04:51 PM

Dear Donna: With all due respect your headline is a cheap shot that totally distorts the real focus of the intelligent discussion that was taking place on the subject, as my main points were not either in total praise of the Patriot Act or Bill O'Reilly. Your audience would have been far better served by the posting of the actual transcript, rather than a lengthy summary.

That being said your headline failed to put my "God, Bless Bill O'Reilly" statement in the context that it was stated. When few other media venues had the inclination to fully research and then cover the story of Dr. Al Arian in depth, he was on top of it. I was complimenting his pioneering coverage of a major national story, NOT every controversial opinion of his (some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't). Al Arian is allegedly the American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad a terrorist group (according to our State Dept.) that killed the following people (partial list) according to the ICT:

October 9, 1993 - Dror Forer and Aran Bachar were murdered by terrorists in Wadi Kelt in the Judea Desert. The Popular Front and the Islamic Jihad 'Al-Aqsa Squads' each publicly claimed responsibility.

November 17, 1993 - Sgt. 1st Cl. Chaim Darina, age 37, was stabbed by Gazan terrorist while seated at the cafeteria at the Nahal Oz road block at the entrance to the Gaza Strip. The perpetrator was apprehended. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the murder.

December 5, 1993 - David Mashrati, a reserve soldier, was shot and killed by a terrorist attempting to board a bus on route 641 at the Holon junction. The Islamic Jihad Shqaqi group claimed responsibility for the attack.

February 9, 1994 - Ilan Sudri, a taxi driver, was kidnapped and murdered while returning home from work. The Islamic Jihad Shqaqi group sent a message to the news agencies claiming responsibility for the murder.

November 11, 1994 - Capt. Yehazkel Sapir, 36, of Kfar Sava; Lt. Yotam Rahat, 31, of Tel-Aviv; and Capt. Elad Dror, 24, of Kibbutz Nachson were killed at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip when a Palestinian riding a bicycle detonated explosives strapped to his body. Islamic Jihad said it carried out the attack to avenge the car bomb killing of Islamic Jihad leader Hani Abed on November 2.

January 22, 1995 - Two consecutive bombs exploded at the Beit Lid junction near Netanya, killing 18 soldiers and one civilian. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

April 9, 1995:
Staff-Sgt. Yuval Regev, 20, of Holon;
Staff-Sgt. Meir Scheinwald, 20, of Safed;
Sgt. Itai Diener, 19, of Rishon Lezion;
Sgt. Zvi Narbat, 19, of Rishon Lezion;
Sgt. Netta Sufrin, 20, of Rishon Lezion;
Cpl. Tal Nir, 19, of Kibbutz Miflasim;

Sgt. Avraham Arditi, 19, of Jerusalem; and Alisa Flatow, 20, of the United States were killed when a bus was hit by an explosives-laden van near Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

March 4, 1996 - Outside Dizengoff Center in Tel-Aviv, a suicide bomber detonated a 20-kilogram nail bomb, killing 13 (12 civilians and 1 soldier): Bat-Hen Shahak, 15, of Tel Mond; Hadas Dror, 15, of Tel Mond; Kobi Zaharon, 13, of Tel Aviv; Inbar Atiya, 21, of Ramat-Efal; Dan Tversky, 58, of Tel Aviv; Dana Gutman, 14, of Moshav Mishmeret; Yovav Levy, 13, of Tel Aviv; Leah Mizrahi, 60, of Tel Aviv; Tali Gordon, 24, of Givatayim; Rahel Sela, 82, of Tel Aviv; Sylvia Bernstein, 73, of Hod Hasharon; Gail Belkin, 48, of Herzliya; St.-Sgt. Assaf Wachs, 21, of Holon.

For O'Reilly's part in exposing this alleged terror network HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, I gladly stand by my statement. I wish you were half as concerned with the exposing terrorists, as you are in trying to tar popular TV personalities. I have complimented NY Times reporters on FNC and elsewhere without being accused of endorsing their editorial page. Furthermore, "Remembering Oklahoma City" can include among other things, an analysis of the belief systems that spawned such a tragedy, so we can guard against it in the future. It just seems you are grabbing at straws on that one.

Your terse advice on pursuing other venues than FNC is also misplaced. In March and April if you cared to look, I was in the NYT, WP, NBC, ABC, AP, Boston Globe, NPR stations, and Knight Ridder among others). I am happy to compliment good journalism whether the reporter shares my political views or not. Why is it that your mistaken belief that I only use one venue to air my views detracts from my credibility, but your laser focus on criticising FNC leaves your credibility or intent unscathed.

Your selective headline selection is just the kind of pablum I'd expect out of a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh, not on a site that truly seeks out truth. I think this space would better serve the public if it were used to really examine the pros and cons of the Patriot Act and the nature of terror movements (or other issues), rather than play a gotcha game against FNC or myself. Look at some of the comments posted on the site...so and so sucks, etc., hardly intelligent discussion. As an aside, I'm curious as to your background ( concerned citizen, lobbyist, journalist, etc.)

It's a real shame when people of good will can't disagree on issues without one side resorting to name calling or distortion because they have an axe to grind against a particular network. I've often found that those who are the first to accuse others of bias, are often the ones who are guilty of it themselves. That being said, I do appreciate the opportunity for me to respond to a headline that fails to encompass the primary points of the interview.

Sincerely, Prof. Brian Levin
Posted by: Brian Levin at April 20, 2005 08:40 PM

Mr. Levin, We cannot police other peoples' thoughts and words. Look at other comments posted. Good, honest people worried about our civil freedoms. You sell us short, sir. Not every instance ends in name calling, nor does every disagreement come about as an instance of ax-grinding. And often, those who accuse others of bias do it because tey [sic] see real bias, not because they are reactionary.

You can make your suggestions about this site, and what it would better be served as something else, but did you read the headline? The focus is Fox News, not the Patriot Act. We are not playing a "gotcha game," but exposing what we feel is a systematic disinformation of the public. If you felt you were misrepresented, that is one thing. Address that. But to attack the entire mission of this site is not appropriate.
Posted by: Kim, Pb.D at April 20, 2005 11:03 PM

Dear Kim: I don't sell anyone short. A large number of the responses to Donna's piece were more of an insult or one liners than exposition...

Yes, god bless Bill O Liely, he's been lowering the bar for years.

Levin: "God Bless Bill O'Reilly, he was on top of it, the Patriot Act lowered the bar."
I'm sure BOR is would like sexual harassment to be outside the scope of The Patriot Act. Bill lowered the bar on integrity for sure.

Faux is doing what it does best: shameless self-promotion.

Doesn't this boil down to: "no one's jumping at our color chart any more - how can we scare people next?"

Oh, BOR sucks..........

You missed my other point. Donna stated that my credibility (being taken seriously) was in question because she incorrectly believed I didn't interview with other outlets. If the alleged narrow focus for my media attention calls into question my credibility, the same could be said for you whether it is your mission or not.

I would have covered the same issues irrespective of what network I was on. Also, I have taken a variety of "liberal" positions on FNC such as speaking out for hate crime laws, against Islamaphobia, right wing terrorism, deprivation of civil liberties and intolerant talk radio. Under no circumstances was I ever told what to say or not booked because of my position. You have every right to examine any outlet you like, but perhaps the unblinking focus can cause you to find bias in instances such as this where it doesn't exist. I have heard far more controversial positions from hosts on CNN (Lou Dobbs) and MSNBC (where a bigot named Michael Savage was briefly employed) than were expressed by either Shep (a genuinely nice fellow) or myself.

The only systematic disinformation going on with regard to my Shep interview was the deceptive title you placed on the top of this page. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to respond, but really wish you applied the same standards to yourselves that you seem to require of others.

Sincerely, Prof. Brian Levin