I was reading though Renaissance Guy this morning when he brought up the very thing I’ve been rattling around:
…in the Fort Hood shooting there was a Muslim man who clearly considered himself part of the massive struggle that radical Muslims call jihad. In that case, however, the media darlings tried and tried to avoid reporting it.
in the Tucson shooting there allegedly and apparently is a lone man, deeply disturbed and incoherent, with no clearly dilineated political persuasion and no definite motive. It’s a bit too soon to tell for certain, but it appears that they [the media] were dead wrong again…
Let’s take a look.
In both cases a single gunman opened fire in a public place and was able to inflict great bodily harm.
At Fort Hood you could read multiple stories reporting the events and not one single time would you bump into Islam or Muslim. For example, I posted about such an example here and here. In cases where the story centers on a narrative that the media doesn’t like, in this case, Muslim extremists taking part in violent terrorism, they ignore and suppress it.
However, when no such narrative exists, the media does the opposite; they insight and amplify. Further, they CREATE a narrative that doesn’t exist; Right Wing talk radio drove this man to commit his acts of violence.
What went from a story of radical Muslim Jihad went to a hushed up story of a doctor having difficulties in his role as a doctor in the military.
What went from a story of a single deranged kid gunning down an elected official went to a story of hate speech on the part of the Right and a need to consider laws that further restrict speech and freedom.
I don’t think that the media is doing its job.