Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings

russ_watters

I'm disturbed by what I am seeing in some media's coverage of the Fort Hood shootings. It seems to me that some media outlets that lean left are downplaying or ignoring the possibility - probability - that this incident was religious motivated terrorism.

In searching for motivation, Newsweek has a prominently displayed article suggesting the stress of being in the military may have motivated the killing: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehu...the-brink.aspx

CNN recently put up an article playing a similar angle: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/06...ood/index.html

USA Today's main article is better, but what I consider to be a key piece of information is buried 2/3 of the way down on the page: http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...ort-Hood_N.htm

Obama said we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Yes, we live in an "innocent until proven guilty" society and that is a very safe, if useless thing to say (or maybe he's overlearned from his experience with the "stupid" cop comment?). We have very strong indications that this was an act of Islamic extremist terrorism and yet news organizations are speculating more prominently about some vicarious PTSD?! WHY? Why is the story being spun this way?

russ_watters

Much better, CBS posted an article late this afternoon (4:20, judging by the timing of the first comments that specifically explores the Islamic extremism angle (oh - its an AP article): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...html?tag=stack

This pushed me to see what Fox News has to say. Fox news comes right out and says the likely motive: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572571,00.html

Notice the difference: One article mentions his issues but doesn't specifically link them to the shootings, the other comes out and explicitly connects them.

fourier jr

it's not being "spun" that way. at this point nobody knows what his motive was

russ_watters

Here's a good commentary that reflects my feelings on the matter: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...N7gl7zdsJ31vnJ

russ_watters

The article is exploring the possibility that it was some vicarious PTSD and not exploring the possibility that it was terrorism. I'd like to know why they are exploring one possibility but not exploring the other.

[edit: and please note: the possibility that it was vicarious PTSD is currently the cover story on CNN.com] Uh huh..... so your powers of critical thinking don't lead you in any particular direction?

We're not in kindergarden. Thinking people can look at evidence and form opinions.

mheslep

Couple of good posts Russ.

After the Ft Hood the incident resulting in 13 non-muslims dead, 0 muslims dead, the BBC comes out with this headline:
"Shooting raises fears for Muslims in US army"

I note after the Tube bombing one wag wrote this appropriate parody of the BBC:
“British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”
which they well deserved.

mheslep

Per all the news sources, Hasan never served a day anywhere near a combat zone, so any PTSD on his part is a red herring.

Pengwuino

From what I heard on one of the coverages, someone claimed that there's a such thing as secondary PTSD, where someone who counsels people going through PTSD somehow also gain PTSD. Not sure the details, I wasn't paying to omuch attention unfortunately.

lisab

An engineer just shot up his former work place in Orlando, Florida. OMG! What's his religion?

That's a ridiculous question, isn't it? It hasn't been addressed by the media...well, he must not be Muslim.

Chill out about Nidal Hasan's religion. The guy clearly had mental illness. He was born in the Virginia, a graduate of Virginia Tech. He is *American*...most likely, he is simply a mentally ill American.

Mentally ill people often use religion as a scaffold for their illness...how many people in mental institutions identify themselves as Jesus?

russ_watters

Yes, a similar angle is currently being played by CNN and USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ampaigns_N.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/mus...ood/index.html

It gets even worse: now the headline on CNN.com is "Family: Ft. Hood Suspect Faced Taunts" http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/...lim/index.html

The vicarious PTSD is looking for excuses - this is blameshifting.

russ_watters

Exactly! In that case, religion clearly has nothing to do with the crime: he was a disgruntled ex-employee.

In the Ft. Hood case, religion clearly did have something to do with the crime.

If a woman named "Shannon" shot up an abortion clinic, would you have any doubt what her religion was or that she was motivated by it? It may well be that all Islamic terrorists are by definition mentally ill, but why does that mean we shouldn't talk about the issue? It is important!

...and he didn't identify himself as Mohammed. That's a false comparison. Were you aware that his parents were Palestinian immigrants and he has labeled himself as "Palestinian"? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572509,00.html

mheslep

Well I'd be totally uninterested in his religion, unless it was reported that he shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before firing, or that when asked if he was an American he reported his nationality as Palestinian even though he was born in the US.

You assess Hasan is mentally ill on what basis? Is Bin Laden mentally ill? The 9/11 hijackers? All members of Al Qaeda? How about the Ku Klux Klan who draped themselves in religion? Do we Chill Out on them too?

lisab

Actually, as an atheist, I totally agree with you that using religion as a motivation for any hostile or irrational act is insanity, whether it's "Shannon" or "Nidal" doing the deed.

So we agree that religiously motivated actions, when violent, are basically insane. But religious conservatives aren't castigated as a group every time an abortionist is shot.

I guess when you're in a group that is thinking groupthink, everyone else in the group looks perfectly sane.

Choronzon

Yes they are. Hasn't there been threads on this very board blaming FoxNews and O'Reilly for Tiller's murder?

lisab

Complete nonsense. Conservative church goers felt no reason to hold their heads down or apologize the last time an abortionist was shot.

And in fact, they shouldn't, frankly. The nut case who shot Tiller was insane, and those who hold the same religious views that he did should not have any responsibility for his actions.

Do you think Muslims should shoulder responsibility for the actions of one of their fellow believers who does some insane act?

mheslep

At least radical, restore the caliphate, Islamists, should take responsibility.

Moonbear

While we don't really know his motives yet, I am very annoyed at the news channels that seem to be trying to dismiss his actions as somehow explainable because he was called names...yeesh...he's a psychiatrist, he should know how to handle stuff like that.

I've even seen some people trying to blame it on a stigma in the military about mental illness hindering him from being treated for some underlying problem. Again, he is a psychiatrist...I think he would have known about available mental health treatment and not been worried about a stigma...or else maybe that was why he was getting lousy performance evaluations!

Whether he was a terrorist or just a run-of-the-mill mass murderer, I don't particularly care, as long as his punishment fits; I don't see a lot of difference in what sort of punishment should follow either one of those.