If you've turned on any cable news network, radio or flipped through the paper in the past few weeks, the lead story has been about the proposal to build some form of Islamic center near Ground Zero, the spot where the Twin Towers fell on Sept. 11, 2001.
Depending on the network, the issue is framed so differently that it can cause one to wonder if the same topic is being discussed. The center has been described as a celebratory monument to a deadly act, or a "peaceful relations ambassador"; the imam of the mosque has been called a radical jihadist or a peaceful, tolerant community leader. The building of the center has clearly touched a nerve.
It cannot be disputed that the proponents of the project have every legal right to build it. The First Amendment guarantees both the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. Nor can it be disputed that people around Ground Zero are still reeling from the tragic events of Sept. 11, and that their passions run very deep.
The issue has become not whether it is legal to build the Mosque, but rather if the mosque should be built at the proposed site near Ground Zero. The media and politicians have clutched this controversy and are exploiting it to fuel their own agendas.
Almost one year ago, on Dec. 8, The New York Times reported that developers had purchased the property near Ground Zero and were planning on building an Islamic center. There wasn't even a whisper about the proposal at the time. One can only wonder why all of a sudden this issue has caused such controversy.
With the mid-term elections rapidly approaching, candidates are focusing on this issue, almost to the exclusion of all others. In fact, the homepage of Rick Lazio, the Republican candidate for governor of New York, is almost exclusively about the Mosque.
As soon as visitors enter the homepage, they are asked to sign a petition against this project. Lazio is using the public outrage to further his campaign and hammer Democrat Andrew Cuomo, who has gone on record as supporting the builder's right to erect the project under the First Amendment.
New York's gubernatorial election is not the only election being affected by this controversy. It seems that almost every politician, local or national, from city council members to President Obama, has opined on the issue, and used it to further an agenda.
There is a long history of politicians manipulating controversial issues to further campaigns. In the 1790's, it was Alexander Hamilton and the whiskey tax. The 1850's had Stephen Douglas and the extension of slavery. More recently, during the 1960's, George Wallace used civil rights.
Only, those were national issues deserving of national attention. The Islamic center issue is a local issue that has been resuscitated from obscurity nearly a year after it was first reported.
Why didn't these concerns surface when the property was purchased? Why now, going into the electoral season, is this issue taking on such monumental significance? It seems that only after the news started covering the project 24/7, did these issues come out.
The media has long had an effect on the minds and actions of Americans, but that effect seems to be reaching new heights.
The opponents of the project have legitimate worries and deserve to have their voice heard; however, it is very difficult to believe that this newfound fervor against the mosque just happened to come out now.
It appears that the media is hijacking this issue and using it to further its own agendas. Fox News, long known as a right wing station, offers airtime to any Republican running for office willing to give a two minute sound bite against the project, while MSNBC, Fox's liberal counterpart, will make any pro-mosque Democrat sound like the second coming of Thomas Jefferson.
These stations are just some of the examples of how this issue is being exploited to serve the media's agendas. The more airtime this issue is given, the more eager politicians looking for a platform will speak about it; and the more it gets spoken about, the more airtime it gets.
In his closing remarks to the nation, President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned Americans about the military-industrial complex, or the relationship between politicians and the war industries. He argued that war industries supported politicians, who then in turn supported wars as part of their platform, in order to increase the war industries' profits.
It seems today that we have a new MIC, only today it's between politicians and the media. We should all heed Ike's warning, and get back to real issues of national significance.
is a member of the 
Be the first to comment on this article!