The story was not true. Why do the crazies claim it might be when it is not true?

And the husband is also a christian but why in Australia would extremists care?

Another AGE blooper was the screaming headline on Sunday 'AUSTRALIA SOFT TOUCH FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS', a story taken by Tom Hyland from a story by Jon Boone for the Guardian which failed to mention a few trifles like.

1. only 30,400 of the 4.4 million Afghan refugees reached the west last year and only 1350 got here. To read the Hyland and Boone articles though we didn't learn those facts, we had to resort to Foxnews - we also didn't learn from Boone or Hyland that they are leaving because they are terrified of us leaving them to the mercy of the Taliban and increasing violence.

Tom Hyland is one of the best journos in this country so I was shocked to read his one sided, misleading rot.

How does that song go?

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" (Paul Simon: The Boxer)

To the runners of this world, all they need to see is "she has been abducted by Muslim hardliners because of her attempts to convert Muslims to Christianity"

This causes him to scribble:

>>is the husband who have been charged a muslim?... Their is ample evidence that muslim men will not accept any family members (especially woman) converting to the truth. Many throughout the world have lost their lives<<

Disregarding the rest.

Otherwise, he would have seen "Mrs Ahmadi converted to Christianity five years ago and her husband, Nathan, a year later"

I'm equally guilty, at the other end of that spectrum.

As soon as I had seen the name "Pastor Danny Nalliah, of Catch the Fire Ministries", I would have concluded "huh, just another whackamozzie beat-up", and turned the page.

Is it the journalist's responsibility to do the policework, and uncover the body in the back yard before they go to press with the story?

I don't think so.

Given that they had given equal prominence to the two contrasting red flags in the same article - "muslim convert to christianity" and "Pastor Danny Nalliah, of Catch the Fire Ministries", I think they reported fairly.

Readers will inevitably apply their own personal prejudices to the material presented, and draw their own conclusions. Runner will assume it is a hate crime by a Muslim against a Christian, others will assume that the good Pastor is stirring the religious-hate pot again.

But this is a hot topic right now. The New York Times public editor recently asked the question of his readers, should reporters "challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/

It isn't a simple question. The reaction - "yes, you moron, The Times should check facts and print the truth" - even caused him to write an update later:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/update-to-my-previous-post-on-truth-vigilantes/

Both make interesting reading.

Wouldn't it be good if our press exhibited the same level of self-examination here in Australia...

So, I notice that the last few comments here try pointing to Islam as an example of extreme fundamentalism, but really any fundamentalist religion will do, and even those that are middle of the road are still pretty extreme. That opens the mud-flinging opportunities up a bit for the web trolls doesn't it?

Some global pentacostal churches in Australia teach their congregations it's sinful to question or endeavour to apply reason to their church teachings. It's a sin to think - go figure.

It's extremist to generalize about Muslims or any other religion for that matter - these last few commenters obviously don't know too many or don't notice those that they deal with on a daily basis - they're not extreme enough, I suppose.

"It's extremist to generalize about Muslims or any other religion for that matter - these last few commenters obviously don't know too many or don't notice those that they deal with on a daily basis - they're not extreme enough, I suppose"

What gibberish; because other cults are as bad as Islam we should ignore Islam? Is that your 'point'?

Well, other religions are NOT as bad as Islam; have a little wander around the world's trouble spots and pick the other religions involved; of course, I hear you say, it's all the West's fault with Islam because we occasionally confront the poor, misunderstood darlings.

I do wish all these bleeding heart do gooders would just go jump of the Sydney harbour bridge, over the hard stuff, not the water.

They obviously have a death wish for themselves, but they want to include the rest of us, & our society in the event with them, for some reason.

Well I for one won't be in it, & I will fight them tooth & nail, to prevent them giving away our kids birthright, & killing our society with their stupidity.

They see themselves with the moral high ground, when it is only the height of stupidity that they are attaining.

Excellent article. Unfortunately reportage that reinforces prejudice and false stereotypes is quite common in Australia as shown by recent Press Council rulings and the judgment in the Andrew Bolt matter.
This impoverishes the nation quite significantly.
Let's hope the current national inquiry comes up with recommendations which bring about reform.
And let's continue to draw attention to failings whenever they occur, as this article has done admirably.