Buzzfeed: Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?

[Bang]

I do think she should have asked about his beliefs, let him answer, then move onto topics in the book, which would be difficult to do since she apparently didn't read it.

that, and that she's not supposed to let him answer and move on with it. Her job is to draw attention to him being a Muslim writing about Jesus.

~Bang

[The Evil Genius]

Let's see...Aslan came to the US when he was 7.

 

He grew up in San Francisco.

 

He lives now in Hollywood.

 

Was there anything really that Fox News could possibly like about the guy?

He's just a little more acclaimed than you think.

I never said he wasn't a scholar. I said he wasn't an historian, and he's not. Look at that bio. None of those otherwise impressive credentials, except possibly his Bachelor's degree, are in history, or anything more than tangentially related to the topic of the book.

 

That makes sense. However I suspect his religion/theology studies degrees required a massive amount of historical research, right? I know I was lost in the few religious studies courses that I tried to take and I was a political science major.

 

[Zazzaro703]

The entire mainstream media as a whole has sunken to whole new level. There really needs to be checks and balances on what they report on all areas of the news. Quite sad when you have to read a news story on pretty much all the mainstream sites, then put the pieces together to try and get what really is going on. Then at times you can't even rely on that because the first stories will always have updates retracting and adding things because they were rushing to get the story out first, correct or not.

[DiscoBob]

I can't get by the author spending the first 1/2 of the interview touting his credentials...

[Bliz]

I

would actually posit the opposite.  A moderate Muslim should find it

easier to be MORE objective about a topic like this versus someone who

believes Jesus is their lord and savior.

Just pointing

out: He posited that the author's Muslim religion made him biased. Not

that it made him more biased than a Christian might be.

 

If that's the standard, who isn't biased on this topic?

 

 

 

I would actually posit the opposite. A moderate Muslim should find it easier to be MORE objective about a topic like this versus someone who believes Jesus is their lord and savior.

Just pointing out: He posited that the author's Muslim religion made him biased. Not that it made him more biased than a Christian might be.

I think it's obvious that a Muslim would almost certainly bring a bias when examining the gospels, just as a Christian would when examining the Quran.

But- I also think it's possible to try to put ones bias aside and be objective -and it appears that he has beliefs that aren't in line with Muslim thinking as well- so maybe he is an independent thinker (she should have asked about this)-, but the interviewer asking about his religious beliefs isn't inappropriate, IMO.

I do think she should have asked about his beliefs, let him answer, then move onto topics in the book, which would be difficult to do since she apparently didn't read it.

 

okay.  But as I understand it he's not examing the gospels.  He's examining historical society and specifically NOT examining the bible.  That's what I took away from the interview, anyway.

[NoCalMike]

This is how cable news, fox in particular operates.

 

It's obvious the lady giving the interview was probably given a point by the producer to hammer, and the entire interview ended up being merely about that.

[zoony]

I actually thought the interview was pretty typical of what we see nowadays. Not sure how this one sticks out to be honest

[88Comrade2000]

Fox News had their reckkoning on Election Night when they they looked like total idiots.

 

Their ratings haven't been the same since the election season. 

 

Like minded people won't be swayed from FOX, just likeminded people won't be swayed from MSNBC.

 

 

You aren't going to change the mind of the partisans on either side of the debate.  They are in their own little worlds

 

and will remain there forever.

[Dan T.]

He's just a little more acclaimed than you think.

I never said he wasn't a scholar. I said he wasn't an historian, and he's not. Look at that bio. None of those otherwise impressive credentials, except possibly his Bachelor's degree, are in history, or anything more than tangentially related to the topic of the book.

 

Come on, Techboy, you minimized his credentials to a ridiculous degree.  Your summary of his background amounted to a lie, and was worthy of Fox News.

[chipwhich]

He's just a little more acclaimed than you think.

I never said he wasn't a scholar. I said he wasn't an historian, and he's not. Look at that bio. None of those otherwise impressive credentials, except possibly his Bachelor's degree, are in history, or anything more than tangentially related to the topic of the book.

 

Wait, what makes a person a historian?  Are you looking for a degree in American History

 

A historian is what one does not what degree one achieves.

I would say degree wise, he has credentials to be a historian.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan

[Dan T.]

He wrote the book as a respected scholar and historian of all religion, not as a Muslim.

Well, let's not get carried away. He's a professor of Creative Writing with a PhD in Sociology, not really an historian,

And Robert Griffin III is a guy who makes music videos.

[visionary]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/

Liberal media miss reality in jabs at Lauren Green's interview with 'Zealot' author Aslan

 

There’s nothing the left likes better than attacking Fox News. Almost all liberal media “analysis” revolves around such activity, without ever noting the outlandishly liberal biases of the traditional outlets that outnumber Fox like the Persians outnumbered the Spartans. Throw in a chance to defend Islam and bash Christians and you get to light up the Internet like a Christmas (or Solstice) tree.

 

[techboy]

Come on, Techboy, you minimized his credentials to a ridiculous degree.  Your summary of his background amounted to a lie, and was worthy of Fox News.

 

I absolutely did not minimize his credentials "to a ridiculous degree". You stated that he was a respected historian, and it absolutely isn't true.

He is a professor, but he teaches Creative Writing. He does not work in the field.

He has a PhD, but it is in Sociology. He does not have a PhD in the field.

He wrote a dissertation for that PhD, but it was on Global Jihadism as a movement. This is very appropriate for Sociology, but he did not write a dissertation in the field.

"Well respected historians" that work in this field tend to have PhDs in things like Classical History, New Testament, Ancient History, etc. Not Sociology.

Dr. Aslan is, as far as I can tell, a layman in the field. He is a well-educated layman, but a layman nonetheless. He neither works in, nor has formal training in, the field.

This layman status, from what I have read, stands out in the book, where he makes basic historical errors. I do not (and did not) have any intention of shifting the discussion to the subject of the book's problems, but if you want to explore that further, you can follow the link to the book review from the blog of two actual professors of New Testament. The author of the review is not Christian, by the way.

I understand why you might have been misled on this point, given that he appears to have called himself a respected historian, but that simply is not the case. I did not (and will not) quibble with that characterization of himself, because a media interview imposes time constraints and pressures that make precise communication difficult under the best of circumstances (which is why I think those that are calling Professor Aslan a liar because of this are being uncharitable at best).

That being noted, it is simply not true that he is a "respected historian", and I stated that clearly, carefully, precisely, and accurately, and I will not stand for being called a liar on that point.

As you probably know, this happens to be an area of interest for me, and I know all of the big names, the "well respected historians", and most of the lesser ones as well. He simply is not one of them.

Moreover, you will never find me disparaging the credentials of an actual expert in the field, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with that expert's approach to the topic. John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman, for example, are two actual experts who draw many conclusions I strongly disagree with, but you'll never hear me even suggest that they don't have the credentials to make them (except when Ehrman delves into Philosophy, of course, but I digress).

You might have also noticed, by the way, that Riggo-toni shares similar interests, and he also reported being surprised by some of the things Professor Aslan was saying, so it's not just me.

Wait, what makes a person a historian?  Are you looking for a degree in American History

Obviously not.

As I noted, though, what I would expect is a PhD in a relevant field, or even papers published in the subject area. "Experts" who don't have any formal training or work in the field aren't generally considered experts.

There actually a term for that in our popular culture. It's called "armchair historian".

He's free to publish anything he wants, of course, and he's apparently a very good writer (as he should be, given his profession).

He's also very savvy, because it looks like going on Fox News was the best publicity he ever could have gotten.

[Jumbo]

 

 

 

Come on, Techboy, you minimized his credentials to a ridiculous degree.  Your summary of his background amounted to a lie, and was worthy of Fox News.

 

I also so him making dismissive (but not obscene) hand-gestures accompanied by ocular rolling. Just rude. But a lot of people don't know the real tb.

[Jumbo]

Whoa, then I read the rest and it looks like things got a little testy up in here lol

 

RUMBLE!!!!! TB V DanT!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

ok, I'm done. 

[techboy]

I also so him making dismissive (but not obscene) hand-gestures accompanied by ocular rolling. Just rude. But a lot of people don't know the real tb.

I had thought the court order settled the issue with you and that spycam. Do I need to contact the sheriff?

[Dan T.]

Come on, Techboy, you minimized his credentials to a ridiculous degree.  Your summary of his background amounted to a lie, and was worthy of Fox News.

 I absolutely did not minimize his credentials "to a ridiculous degree". You stated that he was a respected historian, and it absolutely isn't true.He is a professor, but he teaches Creative Writing.

-You omitted the fact that he earned a Masters of Theology degree from the Harvard Divinity School.

- You omitted the fact that earned a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology of Religion from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

[techboy]

Dan, you've got to be kidding me. I didn't "omit" his PhD in Sociology. I spelled it out specifically (at least twice!). Sociology is not history. If you had said that he was an expert on 20th century Islam's social effects, I wouldn't have batted an eye.

As for his Master's, Theology is perhaps closer, but it's still not history (though he probably took some classes on Church history). More importantly, though, "well respected historians" don't tout their Master's degrees. They all pretty much have PhDs (or at least equivalent training) in the relevant field.

I also "omitted" his bachelor's degree, which might actually be the closest to relevant.

I'm sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

[Dan T.]

I got the right tree, chopped it down, and burned the logs in a fire pit.

And you're still one of my favorite posters, FWIW.

[techboy]

I got the right tree, chopped it down, and burned the logs in a fire pit.

Dogs don't have opposable thumbs, so how could you wield an axe? You're ruining my idiom.

[SoCalSkins]

His PhD is in Sociology of Religions not just Sociology. Here is an article that outlines his credentials accurately:

 

http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/07/robert-spencer-i-have-exactly-the-same-credentials-as-reza-aslan-oh-really/

[Dan T.]

I got the right tree, chopped it down, and burned the logs in a fire pit.

Dogs don't have opposable thumbs, so how could you wield an axe? You're ruining my idiom.

Are you calling me an idiom?

[techboy]

His PhD is in Sociology of Religions not just Sociology.

That doesn't really impress me, to be honest. As I already noted, it's sociology, not anything history related, religion or not, and his dissertation was about a modern movement in Islam and its social impact.

Here is an article that outlines his credentials accurately:

 

http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/07/robert-spencer-i-have-exactly-the-same-credentials-as-reza-aslan-oh-really/

This excerpt, however, does:

Since i was Reza’s thesis adviser at the Univ of California-Santa Barbara, I can testify that he is a religious studies scholar. (I am a sociologist of religion with a position in sociology and an affiliation with religious studies). Though Reza’s PhD is in sociology most of his graduate course work at UCSB was in the history of religion in the dept of religious studies. Though none of his 4 degrees are in history as such, he is a “historian of religion” in the way that that term is used at the Univ of Chicago to cover the field of comparative religion; and his theology degree at Harvard covered Bible and Church history, and required him to master New Testament Greek. So in short, he is who he says he is.

So it does in fact sound like he does have enough training that it would be inaccurate to call him a layman. I must confess to a little surprise that he could have made some of the errors I've read he made in the book, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm less interested in the nitpicking that blog seems to indicate is going on as to whether or not he's precisely what he claimed in the interview, because as I noted already, the format makes precision a somewhat challenging goal.

[RedskinsFan44]

I think the point is that the book should be looked at based on the merits of its content rather than trying to disqualify it based on the religion or educational background of the author.  I believe that someone with little formal education in a subject could actually do thorough research and offer insight into it.  If Fox thought the book was poorly written they should have put up examples, rather than coming off as focusing on whether a Muslim is qualified to write about Christianity.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/

 

Liberal media miss reality in jabs at Lauren Green's interview with 'Zealot' author Aslan

 

There’s nothing the left likes better than attacking Fox News. Almost all liberal media “analysis” revolves around such activity, without ever noting the outlandishly liberal biases of the traditional outlets that outnumber Fox like the Persians outnumbered the Spartans. Throw in a chance to defend Islam and bash Christians and you get to light up the Internet like a Christmas (or Solstice) tree.

And this is why our political discourse stays in the mud.  "I know you are, but what am I?"

[chipwhich]

This thread has lots of irony in it.

 

TB the local religious "historian" discrediting another "historian" with assumingly far more impressive credentials doing pretty much the same religious thumping, just for the other team.  Love you TB, just poking you previously because of this irony.

What's more ironic is this "historian" is really just a talking head for the extreme left anti christianity religious crowd, which is why he was probably brought on to Fox News and hammered in the first place, but as typical the anti Fox crowd (I am not a card carrying Fox follower) misses the boat that really the interviewee is just as much of a joke as the interviewer....not knowing anything about the anti christianity interviewee.