When the news started coming out about the shooting at Fort Hood I was a bit frustrated. There were so many false reports at first–from established media. I think that they really do everyone a disservice when they give out unconfirmed information. They misreported how many shooters there were, how many victims there were, and the status of the shooter. First he was on the loose, then he was dead, then he was alive and in the hospital. At least I think that is how it went.
One thing that I was sure of was that he was a Muslim. How did I know? It wasn’t because I think all crazed gunmen are Muslim; it’s because the media were working overtime NOT to report his name or his religion. Even after his affiliation with Islam was known, many media outlets were falling all over themselves to come up with other reasons for his rampage–he had been harrassed, he had gotten a poor evaluation, he had been depolyed too many times (he never has been, actually), etc., etc. The fact that they did not come out and reveal that he was a devout Muslim who did not agree with out actions in Afghanistan and Iraq was the one thing that many news sources could simply not accept or report–right away.
Come on, people. We don’t want to jump to conclusions, I agree. We don’t want to be prejudiced and think badly of all Muslims. However, when a Muslim is actually involved in a violent crime, it is unhelpful and dishonest to avoid reporting it. As much as somebody might hope that another violent act was not perpetrated by a Muslim, you can’t change reality by avoiding it.
I know, I know, I’m a bigot. If you think so, you did not read carefully. For all I knew, the shooter might have been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Protestant. The reason I guessed, correctly, that he wasn’t, was that the media would have just said so. They might even have called him a right-wing religious fanatic. Am I wrong?
20 responses so far ↓
Quin // November 7, 2009 at 5:40 am |
No, sadly you’re not wrong.
It is, of course, partly because of bigots, but it’s also yet more of today’s PC crap that makes everyone afraid of APPEARING prejudiced, which means we can’t just have genuine uncomplicated news anymore.
Incidentally, I think that distorts just about everything disgustingly. You either get one biased version from the real bigots who don’t give a s–t, or you get another twisted version of half-truths from mealy mouthed reporters who are scared of simply revealing true facts.
Sad, eh?
renaissanceguy // November 7, 2009 at 9:33 am |
It is sad. And I think it is dangerous. Instead of targeting likely terrorists for scrutiny and surveillance, we frisk little old ladies from Topeka at international airports.
According to reports there were reasons for the authorities to keep an eye on this guy. I wish that they had done a better job.
Quin // November 7, 2009 at 10:21 am |
That also is true. If the security services were even half as good as they would have us believe, much of airport security would be unnecessary because they’d already know who was travelling and what their likely reason was.
In my opinion, all of us in our two countries put up with endless surveillance, files on us, questions, delays, interference and infringements of our civil rights and we’re not one jot safer simply because those who are paid a lot of OUR money to protect us are so inept at doing so.
Spherical Time // November 7, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
RG: Even after his affiliation with Islam was known, many media outlets were falling all over themselves to come up with other reasons for his rampage–he had been harrassed, he had gotten a poor evaluation, he had been depolyed too many times (he never has been, actually), etc., etc. The fact that they did not come out and reveal that he was a devout Muslim who did not agree with out actions in Afghanistan and Iraq was the one thing that many news sources could simply not accept or report–right away.
Somehow I doubt that his fear of deployment, stress, and harassment did not also contribute to his actions.
renaissanceguy // November 7, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
He shouldn’t have joined the military if he was afraid of being deployed. He is a psychiatrist. He would not have been in combat. Any fear of being deployed is not an excuse for killing his fellow citizens and fellow soldiers.
If stress causes people to murder, then we are in big trouble. Lots of people are stressed. I have felt incredible stress at times. So far, however, I have not killed anyone. I would rather not accept stress as an excuse for murder.
I would rather not accept harrassment as an excuse for murder either. If he was being physically harmed, then he had the right to defend himself. However, he did not have the right to shoot over 40 people because somebody harrassed him.
Besides, none of those things has been proven. They have been the content of speculation.
Spherical Time // November 8, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
You seem to think that I’m defending him in some way. I’m not.
I’m speculating about a rush to judgment.
renaissanceguy // November 8, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
Sorry. Please forgive me.
Now it’s my turn. I was not suggesting that the media rush to judgment either way. I was suggesting that they simply report the man’s name and the fact that he is a Muslim. They should leave all speculation about his motive out of their reports and wait until more facts are known.
Spherical Time // November 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
I think that’s a bad suggestion. Just those two facts would imply that the media thinks that the cause of the crime is that he’s a Muslim. It would be even more prejudicial than just reporting his name.
Jay Burns // November 9, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
If you know the name of the perp. report it. If you know his age report it. Then report any RELEVANT details of the crime. If a person commits a crime and happens to be a muslim. It is not relevant to the crime. If a person commits a crime BECAUSE they are muslim, it is relevant to the story and should be reported.
Joe hates abortion doctor John and murders him because he botched his girlfriends abortion resulting in her death. Joe may call himself a Christian, but it is not relevant to the story.
Joe pickets Johns clinic every Tuesday. Joe sends John threatening letters. Joe eventually kills John because he believes it is what God would want him to do. Joes Christianity is now relevant to the story, and should be reported.
Eve // November 10, 2009 at 8:38 am |
Logical; this would make for good journalism.
Spherical Time // November 10, 2009 at 2:20 am |
Before something is reported, I’d prefer it if the news media actually bothered to confirm it first. Even if it takes a few days.
Accuracy>Speed, in my opinion.
Scott Erb // November 10, 2009 at 8:29 am |
I usually don’t comment on stories like this (school shootings, etc.) because they are rare and usually involve a truly disturbed person. It leads people to over-react, over-generalize, and make crazy suggestions (like screen all Muslims entering the military, etc.) It’s that kind of over-reaction that gets kids arrested for having a small knife in their car trunk. Crazies will do crazy things now and then, c’est la vie.
Eve // November 10, 2009 at 8:47 am |
Scott, I’ve just finished reading some comments by Jung in “The Undiscovered Self” that reminded me of you. In his first chapter he discusses individuals vs. masses of people, politics, and how for every one clearly identifiable psychotic person, there are many more who are ready to break right under the surface, but their particular break can’t be perceived until it occurs.
The break occurs, he says, when some group or mass of people manage to influence the fragile individual and, in effect, psychically absorb him, giving him the ‘excuse’ to break. Without the group identification and creed, he probably would not have broken in the way he did.
“Crazies will do crazy things now and then,” is true, but it doesn’t recognize the place the terrorist group think has in the psyche of a crazy. The psychic influence of Islamic terrorist thought is greater than, say, the psychic influence of abortion doctor killers or mothers who rid themselves of their children by drowning them or faking kidnappings. Even so, every time one sort of a crime breaks out, you’ll see sympathetic crimes break out soon after due to the mass effect the reporting of the event has, etc.
renaissanceguy // November 10, 2009 at 9:03 am
Eve, thanks for explaining about this break. I think it could prove to be relevant in this case.
I for one do not think that most of the terrorist acts committed by Muslims are due to craziness–in the technical sense. In other words, I do not believe that they have mental illnesses that cause them to go on senseless killing sprees.
Rather, they have been taught that it is their religious duty to commit such acts, and most of them seem to accept that premise coldly and sincerely.
I could be wrong, but that’s what it seems like ot me.
renaissanceguy // November 10, 2009 at 8:35 am |
Spherical Time, I agree that accuracy should matter more than speed. I think that the media botched the reporting of this incident terribly–at least some media outlets did.
I think that most people would have correctly taken Dr. Hasan to be a Muslim once they heard his name.
My point is that the mainstream media showed their true colors–not just in avoiding reporting on the identity of the shooter but also in speculating about what his motives could have been, in order to avoid, apparently, implying that his religion had anything to do with it. (Since Muslims never commit acts of terror!)
They should either have done no speculating at all, or they should have presented all possibilities. Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times certainly let their Politically Correctness show big time.
renaissanceguy // November 10, 2009 at 8:56 am |
Soctt, if the perpetrator was crazy, why didn’t anyone notice it before that day? If they did, then why didn’t they do something before the horrific killings?
I do not believe that he was crazy. He was a working psychiatrist in the U. S. Army. All reports to date suggest that the act was premeditated and planned and that the alleged perpetrator has a history of condemning the United States and our actions. Reportedly he wore Arab garb that day, which was unusual, and he reportedly shouted “Allahu akhbar!” before he began shooting.
You are doing just what I’m saying the “journalists” at various news outlets did. You cannot consider the fact that this man sincerely believed that his religion compelled him to take this action. He must be “crazy.”
Why do you doubt what they themselves say? The radical Muslims say that they are doing what the Koran says to do. They are obeying their imams. They are carrying out a holy war because of Zionism.
Why do you insist on chalking it up to their being “crazy”?
—–
NOTE: I am not against Muslims or against Islam (although I disagree with it). I do not blame all Muslims for what a few do. However, it is silly to pretend that such acts have not been done by Muslims or to shy away from reporting on them because one does not want to “appear” bigoted.
Mike Lovell // November 10, 2009 at 10:26 am |
Jay-
You know darn well Joe doesn’t picket John’s clinic on tuesdays. He’s busy rolling out Meals on Wheels that day. He pickets on Thursdays.
Sheesh, and you call yourself a reporter!! LOL
Jay Burns // November 10, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Rguy – You said earlier that the reporters should either not speculate, or provide ALL possible explanations.
It is impossible to know ALL possible explanations therefore you must not speculate at all. In the words of Joe Friday. Just the facts ma’am.
Spherical Time // November 10, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
RG: They should either have done no speculating at all, or they should have presented all possibilities.
As Jay mentions, they could not have speculated on all possibilities but it sounds like they tried. I was still on vacation when this happened but from what I gather they presented that he was a Muslim very quickly after it happened.
Then they speculated on reasons for the shooting and “being Muslim” really isn’t the first reason that comes to mind when trying to figure out why people got killed. Mental instability would certainly strike me as more likely, even for a Muslim man.
Now of course, we know more about him and religious extremism appears much more likely.
RG: Soctt, if the perpetrator was crazy, why didn’t anyone notice it before that day? If they did, then why didn’t they do something before the horrific killings?
There were some indications, and people are asking why these things were not noticed and dealt with earlier.
His behavior, certainly some of the reports of his classwork and statements made to others makes me think that he was crazy.
Scott Erb // November 10, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
To me it’s most important that this is an isolated incident. This is really rare — so people who try to make it into something bigger than it is are committing a bias error, that was my main point. Clearly we can try to understand his view — he reminds me a bit of McVeigh, though coming from a different perspective — but the McVeighs and this guy (I forget his name) are thankfully rare.