On Sunday, August 8, the New York Times ran a front-page article by Laurie Goodstein entitled “Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition.”   Three days prior to the publication of the story, Ms. Goodstein contacted ACT! for America president Brigitte Gabriel to get her comments for the story.

It was clear from the questions Ms. Goodstein asked that the newspaper was planning to re-frame the opposition to the mosque at Ground Zero into an “Americans are opposing mosques everywhere” narrative.


Such a narrative is an expression of the political left’s worldview that opposing the mosque at Ground Zero is motivated by bigotry and intolerance.  By recasting the debate as one where “opposition to mosques everywhere proves Muslims are being denied religious freedom,” rather than “Americans are concerned about the location of the mosque at Ground Zero,” the New York Times and its friends in the media are trying desperately to stem a growing and understandable tide of opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.

Of course, the Times’ narrative isn’t true.  It referred to three locations where so-called “mosque controversies” have occurred – hardly a battle “Across [the] Nation,” as the article headline states. There are approximately 100 mosques in New York and at least 2,500 mosques nationwide, virtually all of which encountered no opposition.  One pastor in Tennessee told us that plans for his church expansion received far more scrutiny from the local government than did the proposal for a mosque in the area.  But since when have the facts gotten in the way of a narrative the New York Times wants to peddle?

The questions posed to Ms. Gabriel, president of ACT! for America, all centered around whether or not she, or ACT! for America, was involved in or on a mission to stop the building of mosques in this country.  Ms. Gabriel answered each of the questions, explaining in different ways and multiple times that the mission of ACT! for America is to combat the threat of radical Islam, not the construction of mosques.

The New York Times did not print any of Ms. Gabriel’s responses.  Apparently, her answers did not fit the narrative the newspaper desired.  However, the article did include a reference to ACT! for America, referring to “ACT! for America, a Florida-based group that says its purpose is to defend Western civilization against Islam.”

mosque site

There’s only one problem with this – it misstates the ACT! for America mission.  When our public relations firm contacted Ms. Goodstein and demanded a correction, she insisted this was an accurate characterization because it was lifted directly from the ACT! for America website.

That’s the second problem.  Nowhere on the ACT! for America website will you find the statement in Ms. Goodstein’s story.  What you will find are references such as:

  • ACT! for America was created to provide American citizens a means to be a collective voice for the democratic values of Western Civilization, such as the celebration of life and liberty, as opposed to the authoritarian values of radical Islam, such as the celebration of death, terror and tyranny.

Note the difference.  The ACT! for America mission is combating “radical Islam,” the political ideology committed to advancing sharia law through jihad and other means.

The Times article dropped “radical,” to lead the reader to believe ACT! for America opposes Islam in its totality.  This is a real difference and a blatant, and I believe intentional, mischaracterization.  Why?  Because it served the narrative the New York Times wanted to print – that this is about opposition to all Muslims and all of Islam.

We demonstrated to the Times that its representation of our mission was inaccurate and not supported by our mission statement or other descriptions of our organization on our website.  The newspaper refused to budge, insisting we must have altered the website after the story ran.

They are wrong.  But then, the Times has a long record of not letting the facts get in the way of its agenda and its narratives.