This New York Times report on the massacre at Fort Hood- "Army Doctor Held in Fort Hood Rampage"- is more notable for the words it doesn't use than those it does. In that sense it resembles the BBC's classic- " Plumber appears on terror charges".
Do they think that readers won't put 2 and 2 together when they see the suspect's name? Not that they should have headlines blaring out "Muslim Nutter Goes On Rampage", but it is clearly worth mentioning that the chief suspect is a Muslim given that the US is fighting islamist organisations that purport to represent Muslims. It could be that religion isn't the shooter's motive but it is legitimate line of enquiry. If reports in other more open newspapers are accurate, then it is highly likely that the massacre was related to the shooter's beliefs.
Dismayed
1 hour ago
13 comments:
But isn't this because the NYT doesn't believe he is a Muslim: to quote the article:
Military records indicated that Major Hasan was single, had been born in Virginia, had never served abroad and listed “no religious preference” on his personnel records.
Whoops, I missed out the exclamation mark after the word 'Muslim'. The NYT obviously is on its own in this view.
"It could be that religion isn't the shooter's motive..."
Want to buy a bridge? Going cheap! ;)
"Military records indicated that Major Hasan was single, had been born in Virginia, had never served abroad and listed “no religious preference” on his personnel records."
Good old Grey Lady...
The other thing, and I don't think it applies in this case but I can't be sure, is that sometimes you can get a misleading impression from the internet as to what the paper is actually showing. For example if there was the article, and then next to it on the front page a box profiling the murderer, you could quite easily miss that online.
"Want to buy a bridge? Going cheap! ;)"
Plenty of gun massacres have been carried out by other assorted oddballs. Presuambly Islam doesn't immunise someone from generic craziness.
"sometimes you can get a misleading impression from the internet as to what the paper is actually showing. "
True although I'd say that this happens less often nowadays as newspapers look on the web as an equal part of the newspaper with the paper version.
Interesting you should say that because I ran series of posts on the psychological community and the way they operate [old blog] and you're right - they're dangerous.
JH- Yeah but I had assumed they were only dangerous to their clients.
According to the BBC he shouted Allah Akhbar before he started firing. That might be a bit of a clue as to motive.
"According to the BBC he shouted Allah Akhbar before he started firing."
He was trying to say hello to his friend Akhbar?
The Guardian wasted no time, I see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/06/fort-hood-shootings-hasan-muslim
They're so predictable that I'm sure they must simply have a stack of prepreared articles.
"According to the BBC he shouted Allah Akhbar before he started firing."
Perhaps he was showing solidarity with the Iranian opposition, who were using that very slogan a few weeks back?
Yes, there are quite significant problems within Islam. There was some nutter in Arizona about a week ago who killed his (very pretty) daughter because he deemed her too western. In my view this is why we need to fully push ahead with secularism. Most Muslims will simply realise that western culture, as much as it's got its bad patches, is a damn sight better than anything in their countries of origin.
People can, within quite a short time, change their culture- look at the way we lived 100 years ago, or the way the Irish lived 50 years ago, a thing that bears no resemblance to anything in this day & age.
Hasan is, by all ccounts, someone who has long been known to be mental. In my view the army should have had a stricter vetting process & in all likelihood he would have been barred from joining.
There are massive issues around the quality of the recruits to the army. Virtually none of them are Muslims, of course, just people who for one reason or another shouldn't be given weapons & a reassurance that whatever they do is legitimate.
I suppose people aren't exactly battering down the doors of recruiting stations every morning. But I hope in future the forces will be saying no to a few more applicants.
Post a Comment