I don't really care about mentioning the religion, but because he's Muslim some news channels make that into a bigger deal than anything else. Examining his life is good, making the religion the end all be all isn't.

And if you were Christian protesting an abortion clinic, you'd be doing it because of your faith. If this were (or turns out to be) a religiously motivated crime, I'd agree.

I don't really disagree with you, I'm just more tentative about it because of how the media abuses information.

Not necessarily. If there were abortion-clinic patrons at the mall, and they were the target of your rampage, then it most definitely would be newsworthy. But, as far as we know, this man's faith has nothing to do with the incident at hand.

It'd be like the media saying, "He drove a red car to the mall. Obviously, all people who drive red cars are threatening to mall-goers." There's no obvious connection.

Sydney, I think what you said is the way it should be, but I don't think thats the way it is. When someone commits an random act of mass violence, your life gets examined. Considering the history of radical christian violence in this country, the fact that you were a rabid anti-abortion protester would be discussed in the media. Now, I'm not saying that the same should be done for this guy, I'm simply pointing out a double standard.

There is also a difference in contemplating whether his faith had anything to do with the act, and mentioning the simple fact. It would obviously inappropriate to make him being a muslim the story. However, when there is a very violent act committed by a Muslim from a war-torn homeland, I don't see the reasoning behind trying to avoid mention of his religion.

I do agree that media can make it a bigger deal than anything else, and I think that would be very irresponsible. On the other end of the spectrum I think many news outlets are doing the work of the Muslim faith, trying to paint it as a religion of peace. I'm not saying it isn't that, but I don't see protecting a faith's reputation as something a news media organization should become involved in.

It certainly was for Eric Rudolph after he was identified as the prime suspect in the Atlanta Olympic bombing. It's all part of trying to answer the obvious question: "Why would he do something like this?".

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. It was the contrast between MSM and conservative journalist that Shinerbock pointed out.

Ethics of journalism? Tell it to Richard Jewell. You've got to be kidding, again, DeltAlum.

Who is deciding that religion isn't a factor and that it shouldn't be part of the story? How do they know? Do you remember a time that the ethics or journalism involved reporting the facts?

Just the freaking fact that it was in Salt Lake City and the dude wasn't Mormon seems pretty newsworthy to me.


Muslims who shoot things up and kill people for reasons other than religion better start leaving notes so they aren't misunderstood.


I'm kidding about the last part, but really after Sept. 11th, March 11, and assorted other terrorist attacks in the name of Islam, it might not be a bad idea if you didn't want people to be confused about the religion of peace.

Until somebody shows some proof that it is, it shouldn't be a part of the story.

That's the point.

Do you see any evidence that the standard you expect is the standard being used by anyone reporting today?

How is being from Bosnia more connected to the story than the guy's religion?

So religion shouldn't be mentioned until we find out for a fact that it was absolutely relevant? Does that apply to other stories, like positive ones? I think this is a completely unrealistic though somewhat well guided notion.

I don't think it's well guided. On some level religion if one really lived it out would always be significant when evaluating someone's actions. Surely, religion is always considered relevant by the media when a well known Christian does anything bad.

Generally, the mainstream media stinks, and the presence of the internet based reporting is proving it daily. I'm not a conservative radio or Fox fan, but I am a mainstream media hater. The idea that anyone would pretend there were some journalistic ethics at play just seems laughable.

The idea that the media are in a position to decide what ought to be part of the story is in itself an insulting premise, and even if one accepted it, it's clearly not the standard being used in most cases. When an issue falls outside certain PC boundaries, the media gleefully report it. Again, see Richard Jewell.

So, the blogs are more reliable than the real media?

Give it a rest.

You've managed to insult a lot of my friends on this one, and I can't help but wonder if you've ever met a professional reporter.

Since nearly the beginning of the Republic, when members of our elected government wrote Freedom of the Press into the First Amendment to the Constitution, reporters and editors have had the privilege and the sometimes heavy burdon of deciding what ought to be part of a story. That makes some people angry and sometimes that includes important people. See Richard Nixon.

I've said it before that there are some bad journalists (like there are bad doctors, lawyers, etc.), but the vast majority of the ones I've known and worked with are dedicated, honest, hard working professionals. They're not always right, and sometimes get bad information. Sometimes, they do a bad job. See Dan Rather. However, given the number of words written and broadcast daily without error, I think the work they do is pretty remarkable.

Oh, and by the way, while I'm not a journalist, your comment about believing in journalistic ethics insults me personally.

Delt, you give it a rest. She's talking about something that is obvious to most Americans. You can stand on a soapbox and speak about the ethics of the journalism community or talk about the higher calling of the media, but it the news simply isn't the idealized profession you make it out to be. She insulted your friends? Give me a break. I'm so sick of hearing the media act as though they have some responsibility to the public, yet they only apply this responsibility when the information fits their personal views. Journalists act as though no one is above scrutiny, but God forbid someone question the press.

"Most Americans?" I'd like to see some Proof to that claim.

That most American's think journalists have an agenda? I would like to see polling numbers on that too... Oh wait, who's gonna tell us about it?

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=18766

I don't subscribe to the Gallup database so I can't see the whole study, but the first paragraph reveals some of what you are looking for. I'm sure such a poll exists; we've just got to keep looking. I'm not as optimistic that most people feel as I do, but that doesn't mean that much to me.

I don't know that any individual blog is better than all of the mainstream media, but being able to rely on multiple internet news sources, or multiple news sources period, gives the public a better overall perspective than relying on the mainstream media, who tend to have a pack mentality about issues that often seems to be about telling the public what to think more than reporting on events. It's the attempt to shape the story into something edifying for the public or sensational for the public that I object to. On any page other than the opinion page, give me the information, qualify the limitations of your sources, let me decide what I think. I can decide for myself whether I think his being Muslim is part of the story or just an interesting demographic quirk for a guy in Utah.

You are reading WAY more into my posts than is actually present there if you thought that I didn't value freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It's not the freedom that the problem; it what the mainstream media has been doing or not doing with that freedom. For every Watergate, you've got hundreds of Anna Nicole or Britney stories.

How you got from criticism of media for NOT including information to historic cases in which the press revealed hidden information is beyond me. Would the reporting on Nixon have been nearly as important if Woodard and Bernstein decided for us what the public should know? On the other hand, in matter of national security, the MSM seems to think we need to know everything right then. It's hard to see the kind of serious minded moral and ethical discrimination that you are trying to make the case for. What professors of journalistic ethics are trying to teach, and what the actual media seem to be doing don't line up.

As much as you may be bummed that I said mean things about your friends, there's no way that you can claim the moral high road for the mainstream media as a collective today. You friends may be awesome and they may do the kind of important, objective and complete reporting that I'm looking for.

But that's not what we're getting from most sources. I think the heavy losses that newspapers are experiencing, as well as some rating loss with traditional big three network news shows, do reflect a serious problem. (And some of the problem may be the type of blogs people get their news from.)

And I do know professional journalists, for whatever that's worth to you.

Don't play that game - I'd like to see proof that nearly all journalists:

1- adhere strictly to the standards of journalistic integrity over any other concerns
2- take their jobs seriously (more so than others)
3- perform at a rate comparable to doctors and attorneys

etc etc etc - you've made a LOT of claims that you can only support through anecdotal evidence . . . well, guess what, we all have tons of anecdotes about mainstream media sucking - that's without your latent bias.

It's a go-nowhere conversation, so don't act like shiner is talking out of his ass - he's doing exactly what you're doing. You're just sure he's wrong, which makes little sense to me.