College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Letter: Media biased in coverage of Fort Hood violence

By Morgan Gilmour

Print this article

Published: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

In September 2002, had a Muslim man posted anti-American rhetoric on the Web, sold all of his possessions the previous day and screamed “Allah is Great” in Arabic while killing 13 and wounding more than 30 people on an Army base, I don’t believe any news source, regardless of how liberal it was, would leave out the possibility the man might be a terrorist. I don’t believe any newspaper or news source whatsoever would fail to speculate the man might have planned the attack. And I doubt anyone in his or her right mind would say this soldier, who had never seen combat and never been overseas, was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

But that’s exactly what happened when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan decided to shoot up Fort Hood last week. Every person shot was someone’s brother, sister, mother, father, wife, husband. Some of those killed were just about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight for our country’s freedom and protect us from those who would want our country taken down.

But if you listen to most left-wing news, including the news magazine Newsweek and several news networks, there is hardly reverence or honest, critical thought about the situation. In fact, even my last statement about our soldiers fighting for our freedom and protecting us from terrorists is fair game for criticism in those media outlets. If forced to acknowledge their existence, they don’t want to label them Muslim, because they don’t want to offend non-terrorist Muslims. Political correctness poses more of a problem to our society than a bunch of whining liberals who manufacture offense whenever they get the chance. This kind of “political correctness” that we see in the news represents a genuine threat to our national security.

It would be fine to speculate that because of Hasan’s opinion about the war, his orders to deploy set him off. It would be fine to argue that when he received a bad review from the people he expressly disagreed with on policy issues, he was irked. But it is absolutely inexcusable and traitorous to America’s security to argue this man’s Muslim views did not enter into his psyche when he was shooting up this Army base.

I won’t bother to argue Muslim terrorists do exist, they are in our country and abroad and they want to destroy America. I won’t bother to argue they will gladly kill themselves and others so they can get to heaven and make their lives worthwhile.  I won’t even begin to answer the ridiculous claims that if we just got these terrorists out of poverty, their worldview would change. And there’s no way if we just let them see how wonderful we were and brought them democracy, they would automatically convert to the light side and stop killing innocent civilians all over the world.

I am ashamed and insulted by the news media’s failure to accurately report this incident. The front-page story of The Chicago Tribune failed to mention Hasan was a Muslim. The Newsweek story tried to claim post-traumatic stress disorder was the reason he snapped. It wasn’t until 24 hours later that most major news networks decided to report the man had shouted “Allah is Great” while shooting. And FOX News, as much as my peers may hate it, seemed to be the only ones who presented all of the known facts. They interviewed a retired Army colonel who said this may have been “the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11” and the ridiculous and dangerous political correctness in this situation “makes (him) want to puke.”

This has people pretty mad. When I say “people,” I mean the men and women who fight for our country’s freedom, whether in the military, in the media, in their businesses or in their homes. The men and women who want all the facts presented, want to protect America from terrorists such as Hasan and don’t shy away from the facts because they might hurt their agenda.

I only pray President Obama, the American news media and American citizens can face the facts before something like this happens again, taking us by surprise because we had our heads in the sand. It is so reminiscent of pre-9/11 thinking under Clinton and Bush that it is scary. Take a step back, and think about what is more important: not offending people of “protected race” (and who would have thought such a thing would ever happen in a country that views all men are created equal), or protecting American citizens?

— Morgan Gilmour
McCormick senior
Member, College Republicans

Comments

11 comments
LAG
Fri Nov 13 2009 21:50
While it's clear that the author has over reacted, i find some of the comments here even more odd. In particular i don't understand that thought that if it was reported that this man was a muslim or even a terrorist that would be lumping all muslims in with this guy. You can report but this muslim man acted alone. If i read that i wouldn't think to myself that muslim neighbor i have must be a terrorist too. His race and religion are relevant pieces of information. If a devote catholic blows up a hospital that performs abortions, his religion is an important piece of information. If Jew went and blew some muslim center, his religion would be relevant. If an atheist blew up a religious center, his religion would be appropriate. It doesn't mean that attacks were necessarily based on religion, it doesn't mean all others of that religion condone the attacks, it doesn't mean anything, but it is relevant and it is completely fair to ask why it isn't being reported. It has after all come out now that he was a muslim, and that he made multiple attempts to contact radical muslims, i don't see any big problems anywhere. I haven't noticed any bombings of muslim centers, or any sudden increase of hatred of muslims. Would it have been so bad to report at the start that a muslim officer had attacked for unknown reasons. I consider the use of the word terrorist pointless one way or the other. Once the details of that attack are made clear it doesn't matter if some call it terrorism and some call it something else, that's just a matter of semantics.
PL
Fri Nov 13 2009 13:46
More harm is done by jumping to quick conclusions than by exercising caution, particularly by the media. Journalists have a responsibility to provide a balanced account of what occurred, especially in areas of extreme sensitivity. It is not up to journalists to bring charges against a man before investigators do. Plus, the media often mentioned terrorism as possibility but until concrete facts arise, they will be hesitant to misrepresent a huge national story. Demanding that this be called a terrorist attack outright, even before the military is willing to draw conclusions, is rash at best.

Ethically, journalists are under an obligation to minimize harm to innocent people. Could you imagine the uproar against Muslim citizens if all media outlets began shouting that terrorists are attacking from within, whether that is true or not. Making a subset of our population, most of whom are peaceful and share many Christian beliefs, feel further alienated with unsubstantiated claims is imposing undue harm. Maybe the writer just doesn't care. I, for one, will not toss aside levelheaded investigation and integrity in reporting just to forsake political correctness, which I think is what is happening here.

A few specific points of this article that irk me: 1) Nobody is denying that what the gunman did was horrifying. You throw in random references to liberal criticism of the Iraq war therefore implying that the "liberal" media is critical of the victims. Come on, seriously? 2) Obviously the murderer's extreme religious views played a part in his actions but what greater lesson can we learn from that fact? Couldn't his growing religious fanaticism be the result of his deteriorating mental state and anxiety about going to war? Will you ignore the root causes of this rampage, much like the Bush administration did when dealing with Muslim terrorists? Does the Fort Hood shootings provide us with any take-away message about Muslim soldiers? Can you say that all or even many Muslim soldiers will manifest their stresses in the same exact way? Obviously not. Humans are complex. The Islamic religion is complex. There are so many conflicting motives and beliefs that trying to sum everything as terrorism would be foolish and far more dangerous to our understanding of our extremist enemies. 3) It's shameful that I need to tell the writer that liberals are not trying to help terrorists to overcome poverty. Are you really that incapable of complex thought or are you purposely misleading readers? The idea is to create an effective economic base for Middle Eastern countries that would reduce poverty levels and the desperation that leads many men to join terrorists in the first place. I'm not sure this would be effective but attacking a problem at its roots sounds pretty reasonable.

The fact that the media is not hysterically screaming "terrorist!" at the top of their lungs is an indication that real dialogue about Islam and terrorism is happening. The media and government have been oversimplifying the situation for years. We should make an effort to be more tempered and make accusations based on facts, not on manifestations of conservative bitterness.

Nice try
Fri Nov 13 2009 11:58
"You know, Ms. Melchior, we're not at war with Catholicism or Lutheranism or Judaism here. Is that so hard to figure out?"

We're not at war with Islam, either. A+ for bigoted scaremongering, though.

Your name
Thu Nov 12 2009 18:11
Mr Anonymous-
Let me replay the question and (your) answer just so you can read it over:

Q:1. Explain how the putative failure to immediately report Nidal Malik Hasan's religion concretely threatens national security

A: I don't think this is what he said, but the man's religion is clearly relevant here and knowledge of it helps to understand motive, because his beliefs seem to have helped lead to his rampage. Understanding that fact would help to prevent future occurences, which is a matter of national security.

You are saying that by reporting the shooter was a Muslim, it would prevent future occurrences. How so? In the hours following the shooting, should all of the Muslim soldiers been detained because their religion can lead to rampages? Should we get our pitchforks? Media outlets did not report Seung-Hui Cho's religion after the VT massacre, did that threaten national security? No. Both shootings were carried out by individuals with extremely troubled minds who acted on their own accord.

I think everyone in America knows that recent acts of terrorism have been committed by Muslims. However, you simply cannot lump the entire Muslim population of the world into the Terrorist camp. Furthermore, all crime committed by Muslims cannot be considered terrorism. Muslim crime is becoming synonymous with terrorism which is factually INCORRECT.

Enough with the fear mongering, racism, stereotyping, and political spin. Lives were lost. Soldiers who were trying to defend this country are dead. It is terrible, but why does it have to be political? Mourn the fallen and figure out what led to the killings, just as in any murder. Just stop with all the nonsense.

Your name
Thu Nov 12 2009 17:23
I'm also troubled by - not what Senator McCain says - but what members of the Party say, and it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian; has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer's "No, that's not America." Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be President? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own Party drop the suggestion he's Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery. And she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards - Purple Heart, Bronze Star; showed that he died in Iraq; gave his date of birth, date of death. He was twenty years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross. It didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Kahn. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey, he was fourteen years old at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he could go serve his country and he gave his life.

-Colin Powell

Mr. Anonymous
Thu Nov 12 2009 14:31
Mr. Kemmler, you're not serious, are you?

1. I don't think this is what he said, but the man's religion is clearly relevant here and knowledge of it helps to understand motive, because his beliefs seem to have helped lead to his rampage. Understanding that fact would help to prevent future occurences, which is a matter of national security.

2. A reluctance to offend the (sensitive) Muslim population again leads to an underestimate of the Muslim threat facing the US. Understanding what's going on in the Middle East (and US) requires saying unpleasant things about certain Muslims and their religious beliefs. The government's clear reluctance to say those things (vide a recent four star general's appalling remarks about "diversity") shows it does not understand the size of the threat facing us and in fact is reluctant to offend a religious minority. That's too bad.

3. Same as above: this man's Muslim beliefs appear to have led to this rampage. If you; don't get that, you can't prevent future occurences.

As far as the Orlando killing goes, I'm not sure they knew right away if the guy was white, black, or Martian. So what?

The fact is, when a Muslim in the US commits mass murder, one has to investigate whether it may be an act of terrorism. The guys who hit the World Trade Center or blew up the Cole weren't Japanese tourists, were they?

You clearly don't understand terrorism, because killing a dozen or so people and wounding a couple of score more clearly has elements of terrorism: the wanton killing of innocent people (including a pregnant woman) for a political purpose. Your dismissal of that possibility, in clear contravention of the known facts, is astounding. Given that he is a Muslim and this occurred on a US military installation, it is certainly reasonable to believe that he had terrorist motives. Your blanket dismissal of this possibility makes you look naive in the extreme and like a member of the doctrinaire left.

There isn't any bigotry in this letter, and you know it. He's guilty of overstatement and he's a little overheated, but one expects that of an undergraduate (and writers like you, who are barely out of undergrad). You own naivete of the threat posed to us by Muslim extremists bespeaks of your own political correctness and a reluctance to consider that this major may have intended to commit an act of terrorism.

You really need to get a clue, Kemmler. As for Lokys Gust, the media ALWAYS are questioning motives, so where have you been? And as for poor Ms. Melchior, witnesses say this guy was shouting "Allah Akbar" as he fired away. So who's jumping to conclusions? You know, Ms. Melchior, we're not at war with Catholicism or Lutheranism or Judaism here. Is that so hard to figure out?

Finally, as to Morgan Gilmour: well done, but do yourself a favor and tone down the rhetoric next time.

AK
Thu Nov 12 2009 14:11
When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Building, police rounded up Muslims in the area. Racial profiling does exist and originally this WAS reported as a terrorist attack on the major networks. The problem is, labelling it a "Muslim problem" isn't the correct attitude; no one was hurt by them not rounding up every Muslim on the base. He acted alone, and they took him down. I'm from Orlando, and a guy murdered several people in an office building, and they didn't immediately report it was a white guy. Is that political correctness?

This is a story of a sick coward, not a terrorist.

Alex Kemmler
Thu Nov 12 2009 01:33
1. Explain how the putative failure to immediately report Nidal Malik Hasan's religion concretely threatens national security

2. Can you please explain how offending people of a "protected race" (er, any race) might help increase national security? Or, can you explain how failing to offend certain races might harm national security?

3. How does it directly threaten national security to "...argue this man’s Muslim views did not enter into his psyche"?

Bigotry of this caliber is pretty shocking to see in the Daily Northwestern, on the Forum page or not. I'm sad to see that pants-wetting, terrified screeds against entire religions and ethnicities are somehow still considered respectable discourse. The irony is that this entire rant against the pernicious nature "political correctness" demands nothing more than a different type of political correctness (one that matches the author's own politics).

By any reasonable definition, this wasn't a terrorist attack. Terrorists use terror as a means to an end, usually political. Hasan's apparent motives and actions are not consistent with that (or almost any other) definition.

-Alex Kemmler, WCAS '07

Alex Kemmler
Thu Nov 12 2009 00:51
1. Explain how the putative failure to immediately report Nidal Malik Hasan's religion concretely threatens national security

2. Can you please explain how offending people of a "protected race" (er, any race) might help increase national security? Or, can you explain how failing to offend certain races might harm national security?

3. How does it directly threaten national security to "...argue this man’s Muslim views did not enter into his psyche"?

Bigotry of this caliber is pretty shocking to see in the Daily Northwestern, on the Forum page or not. I'm sad to see that pants-wetting, terrified screeds against entire religions and ethnicities are somehow still considered respectable discourse. The irony is that this entire rant against the pernicious nature "political correctness" demands nothing more than a different type of political correctness (one that matches the author's own politics).

By any reasonable definition, this wasn't a terrorist attack. Terrorists use terror as a means to an end, usually political. Hasan's apparent motives and actions are not consistent with that (or almost any other) definition.

-Alex Kemmler, WCAS '07

Kate Melchior
Wed Nov 11 2009 19:50
I must respectfully disagree with this argument. American Muslims are American citizens as well, and they also deserve protection, both from violent attach and from alienation, paranoia and unfounded accusation. The VAST majority of Muslims in the US are no more terrorists than populations of any other religion. I think that speculations of terrorist plots by the media based only on a last name and religion would be a dangerous and irresponsible supposition, and especially disrespectful to the many Muslim soldiers also fighting for the US Army and who "fight for this country's freedom". Hasan's actions were horrific, but if he were of any other religion Ii doubt that people would jump to thoughts of terrorism, and the same standards should hold true for Islam. Until there is more proof that this attack had anything to do with terrorism, I think it is the media's duty NOT to make the jump of classifying lumping together all Muslim actions with terrorism, and to simply present the facts as we currently understand them.
Lokys Gust
Wed Nov 11 2009 17:58
I believe you are over reacting and hurting your own cause by doing so. While it is certainly fair to question the news media, it is not fair to call them traitorous for suggesting this was not a religious attack. It is not the job of the media to do what's best for the military, for the US government, or even the country. They are free to say and print whatever they please, and people are free to read or listen to whichever news source they think is the fairest. If enough people agree with you and stop reading newsweek/the chicago tribune because they aren't reporting all the facts, then they will go under. As a natural corollary i consider it inappropriate to lob similar criticism to fox news, especially when it is government officials lobbing the criticism.

I also question the definition of this act as a terrorist attack. To me a terrorist attack is one against civilians. I guess this is just a matter of semantics, but this man attacked a military target. I don't consider that a terrorist attack. That's not to condone his actions, but he could have just as easily gone to some nearby mall or school and opened fire. He chose instead to attack the military. And while it seems clear to me that this man's ethnicity/religion played a large role in his decision to attack, that is an opinion, not a fact, and it is fair for members of the media to question his motives.







log out