Mall Shooting
 

I think it is interesting that the person is Muslim. It may or may not have been the motive, but its amazing how you'll only hear this fact on conservative talk radio. CNN is now reporting that he is a survivor of a travesty in Bosnia. I realize this is an interesting development, but it seems odd to me how they'll go out of their way to discuss someone's troubled past, but skim over a possible motive. PC at its worst.

Funny I was going to comment on that too... that they seem to think that the shooter being a Muslim was the only important fact - though now that I think about it kinda is isn't it? I mean how many Muslims have gone postal in a shopping mall or school? Normally it's just Christians going postal and shooting up a place isn't it?

Oh well I guess we'll have to accept that Muslims can go postal as well now :p

I accepted the fact that Muslims can go postal after they flew planes into buildings. Anyone who goes into something and doesn't plan on surviving is "postal" in my books.

Also, these events are reasons why people should carry handguns. I would have loved to have shot that fucker several times.

I've met and hung out extensively with Bosnian muslims. They do not wear their religion on their sleeve like the middle-easterners we're used to seeing. They try to blend in and be as normal as possible. I just cannot see religion as a motive in this at all. He was a very disturbed young man. The stories I've heard about the Bosnian war are a little horrific, so it's possible it affected him more than anyone knew, or he was just going to be like this no matter what or where he was living.

Centaur, I'm not saying yes or no, but I think you saying that about an entire branch of a religion would be like me automatically assuming it was his motive. I understand the reasoning behind not painting this person as a violent muslim without the facts, but its almost as though new orgs go out of their way to avoid mentioning that someone is a muslim. Its not the media's job to keep people from jumping to conclusions, its there job to give an unbiased version of the factual information (I know, this is pretty much impossible now).

Even more than this instance, I just think its pathetic how the media tip toes around the fact that a person is muslim. I absolutely guarantee you that if the shooter was a far right wing anti abortion activist, it would be a factor before now. At some point we need to begin having honest dialogue about the dangers involved in parts of the muslim community and stop using kid gloves on everything. God knows we have no problem getting to the core of problems with other religions.

Side note, RA, yeah, tons of Christians go "postal" in the name of Christianity. Happens all the time...

It seems to me that "main line" media doesn't generally bring religion into this kind of story.

The World Trade Center story and those of obvious terrorism is different, because of the magnitude and/or the terrorist implications -- state or religious sponsored in particular.

I don't think I've ever heard "A disgruntled Catholic went to the mall and opened fire..." Or, "A Presbyterian attempted to hijack an airliner..." Or, "A Southern Baptist went into a local Post Office and killed several people..."

So why does the "conservative media" (your discription, not mine) feel it's important to point out this persons religion? Isn't that a little sensationalist?

In my opinion, the religion is not relevent to the story unless it can be proven that it has something to do with the act, or that there is some soft of backing by a Muslim group. The Bosnia background seems more important to me in this case.

Is that the case here?

I don't think that's "PC" but rather standard journalism practice, and that's traditional -- not anything new.

I really don't think we want to get into the habit of reporting the religion of everyone who breaks the law.

Sure it is. The reason you don't hear "A Christian shot a guy" is because Christians, for the most part, don't have recent history of violence IN THE NAME of their religion. Muslims do. Remember abortion shootings? Or Oklahoma City? Eric Rudolph? Christian fundamentalism came up all the time then. If a muslim gang member shoots up 2 kids in SE DC and steals a wallet, no, it doesn't matter. However, when somebody drives an SUV onto a busy sidewalk or shoots up a mall, I think theres a at least decent chance it is relevant. I'm not asking for them to say "Man, Muslim, Shoots Up Mall." However, I think its absurd how hard some outlets try to avoid the subject.

Your point is taken, but the situation here is not the same. In this case, I'm not aware than anyone has proven -- or even suspected -- that the suspect's religion was the cause of this crime.

That is not the case in the stories you mention. Those were considered by most to be committed because of some misguided religious belief.

As I stated, I have no idea what this guys motives were. I just find it ridiculous that outlets like CNN will talk about his horrible life and present possible excuses for his action, yet avoid talking or even mentioning his religion. If you're going to delve into why someone is the way they are, especially in this case, its ridiculous not to acknowledge that he is a Muslim.

Well, apart from the point where Bosnian muslims are not extremists doing these things in the name of Allah...unless he yelled out 'allah akhbar!' or left a note proclaiming his intentions for his religion, he's like any screwed up human male with red blood in his veins. The Bosnian muslims I know barely practice.
I don't see why it has to be a huge deal that he's a muslim...I would never have known my friends were if they hadn't had told me. I'm pretty sure war atrocities are ranked a little higher on the scale of motives behind a tragedy like this.
Basically what I'm saying is, unless the person responsible is explicit in his reasoning for committing his crime in the name of his religion, it shouldn't come up.

I think it should come up, everything should come up. The guy shot up a mall for no good reason, I think theres every reason for every aspect of his life to be scrutinized.

I guess we can just say that you and folks who teach the ethics of journalism don't agree.

As near as I can tell (and granted we don't know the whole story), religion isn't a factor here, so it's not part of the story.

I suppose, though, that "conservative" journalists never bring up things that might tend to sensationalize a story.

That only happens with other journalists.

The point is that no one asks what church the Columbine kids went to. Were they Christian? Lutheran? Catholic? Baptist? I'd be surprised if their religious affiliation was ever reported, much less made an issue of. Why is religion only an issue when it's something other than Christian?

You continue to misread what I'm saying, apparently. I'm not saying we need an entire piece about his faith, I'm asking why news orgs are purposefully avoiding the subject matter. You're telling me its appropriate to delve into his past, including his presence during a massacre, yet we can't mention his religion? This thread is pretty stale now that the fact that he's muslim has come out, but it just baffles me why we go to such lengths to shield the public from facts.

I guarantee you if I was a Christian who has protested at abortion rallies or something, my faith would be on the front page when I shot up a mall.

I realize that Muslims are under a special threat in this country, but it isn't the role of the media to protect an entire religion. You act as though its unethical to examine the life of someone who killed 5 people. Whether it is or isn't, the clear precedent in journalism is to do so.

What about the dangers involved in parts of the Christian community? Or the Atheist community? Or the Mormon community?

I don't think the media is using kid gloves here; I think they're reporting only the aspects of the case that are actually factors in what happened. Like others have said, since it doesn't appear that his religion is the motive behind the action, it only makes sense that it (his religion) isn't broadcast.

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.

I was surprised that Mormonism has not been mentioned more as part of this story. Honestly the first thing I thought when I heard this happened in Salt Lake was, "I wonder if he was pissed off at the Mormon church?" Really I should not think that, since the last I heard only about 50% of the CITY of Salt Lake is Mormon, but that's certainly the biggest thing people associate with Utah.

Right, that's part of what I wondered. 50% of a city being any one denomination is actually giganitic, but I think most of us assume it's even more than that.

To not report about religion when there's likely to be an assumption about religion made seems like a significant omission.

If you had a Southern Baptist shoot up the Vatican, I think we'd all expect coverage of religion.

On a different note, I rarely tell people "to give it a rest," the first time I talk to them about an issue. Deltalum, are you hearing from a lot of people about the blogs and the mainstream media? I wonder why that is.

ETA: Since the guy wasn't at the Temple, maybe rather than Vatican, I just should have said a shopping center in Rome.

Actually, no. I seldom hear anything about blogs.

I can think of only one real success, and that was Drudge during the Monica Lewinsky thing, I think. Otherwise, I don't think even his track record is so good.

I want to be absolutely sure that it is understood that I am not a journalist, but worked in TV newsrooms (and during that time was around print journalists) for many years and stand by my comments that most journalists are honest, hard working, ethical people. Intimating that all journalists are bad is like saying that all doctors are quacks or all lawyers are dishonest.

A lot of people complain about TV news in particular, but it is by far the most used source for news. I think that's too bad, because print really can cover a story in greater depth and detail.

And I still don't think religion is a newsworthy piece of this particular story.

I think most people respect journalists. I personally think it is a very intriguing and necessary field. However, I think many people lose their patience because of the attitude possessed by many journalists. The news media often comes across as having an attitude of superiority and entitlement. I think it is probably based in the idea that journalists have a responsibility to the public. However, I think that notion is similar to hollywood types who advocate for causes...once good intention is now mixed with selfish motivations. I often get the impression that some journalists feel they have an obligation to the public and a right to information, but that obligation only extends to information which advances their own opinions. It just annoys me personally when I see "unbiased" reporters demanding information from the administration (or whoever) about some almost-scandal, and acting as though they're representing the public. They may very well be pursuing something of public interest, but when I see them refuse to pursue another story of equal significance but impacting a different party or demographic, I begin to question just who they're working to serve.

I'm with you on this one Shinerbock.

It's not that I think individual journalists are particularly corrupt or self serving, but I think we've had too many cases in which journalists went with a story that they wanted or expected to play a certain way because of their general world-view, even though that the actual facts might not have supported the conclusion that the journalist reached. And the rest of the mainstream media didn't seem to want to call them on it as much as maybe the general public and the blogs did. (Dan Rather and the forged Bush service documents is the most obvious case, but the huge discrepancies in Iraq coverage depending on who is reporting are also an issue; as well as the Plame story too.)

I think journalists may be very well intentioned, but that ultimately we can't depend on the press to be anymore unbiased than anybody else, despite what journalism ethics professors teach.

And when people defend the idea that we should trust the press to know should is part of the story or not, it's insulting. Those days are over. If they weren't over before Rathergate, they are over now.

To be honest, I don't even care that the media is biased. I mean sure, I'd love an unbiased news org, but I don't see that happening soon. However, I do wish we'd be more open about who is biased and which way they're biased towards. I think its fairly common knowledge that Fox News is conservative slanted. I've even heard media refer to them as "right-leaning Fox News" or something of the sort. Thats fine, they are biased. It does annoy me, however, that nobody applies a label to other organizations like CNN or MSNBC. You never hear anyone but conservative blogs say "liberal leaning CNN." I hate it when people act like Fox News is some unreliable brand of news media, yet CNN and MSNBC are legitimate. Its always going to be something towards the middle.

Also, for anyone who is about to say something ridiculous like "MSNBC isn't biased" I need only remind you that their "top political team" consists of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

Yep. It is kind of why I like internet sources; very few make claims of objectivity. By reading source A and knowing how they lean and reading source B to kind of counteract A, I can usually get some good information. You have be be careful though, because if you go too far from center, it makes you wondering if the extremist are even aware of any objective reality.

(Why did anyone at Fox think "fair and balanced" was a good slogan for a source which comes so close to owning up to the fact that they aren't? Fox tends to drive me really crazy because they as much as anybody can make conservatives look stupid. The same with right wing talk radio. Damn, some of those people are very impassioned without actually really knowing anything. At least NPR seems smart and reasonable, however left leaning, IMO.)

More than anything, I'm just not interested in any self-righteousness about how the media is best qualified to determine what should be reported when they blow it so frequently.

I wish I could link to something to back up this memory, but I was listening to NPR and they were reporting that according to an audit, they actually tipped right. There's NO way that it's true by any reasonable measure, and yet they were reporting the results of the audit, and I guess I was supposed to say, "oh, gosh, I guess NPR is balanced in its reporting."

(I love NPR, but they clearly tip left.)

ETA: the thing I'm thinking of was before the Thomlinson shenanigans, which I think were total crap. I'm looking for a link.
Edited Again to Add: Maybe it was part of the Thomlinson stuff, but I still can't find a link to what I'm looking for.

My biggest problem with Fox News is how much attention they pay to stupid stories. They really should be based out of Hollywood, because they'd generally much rather talk about Anna Nicole or Britney. Granted, MSNBC is pretty bad about that too, but I can usually at least get some discussion of something worthwhile on there (although its like listening to a DNC discussion). CNN can be good, although it seems every time I want to watch the news on CNN they're doing some 20 minute segment on something stupid.

I've gotten to the point where I enjoy getting news from CNBC, because they generally do it from a financial perspective, which means its not as dumbed down as other networks. Despite my dislike for how anti-administration Matthews is, I enjoy his non-Hardball show. I'm not sure what it comes on, but the other night it was a discussion about the Court with Rosen and another SCOTUS scholar. Thats the kind of stuff I'd like to see on a regular basis. I wish somebody would come out with an intelligent cable network, some sort of CNN/CSPAN/CNBC/History Channel/Public Television blend.

I can see what you're saying about NPR. I hate it because its so slanted, but they're generally a little better about some things than conservative talk radio. The problem with conservative radio is that the personalities are so over the top that the program loses legitimacy. I don't mind that they're extremely conservative, but I'd much rather hear someone like George Will or William Kristol, who could actually discuss policy without feeling the need to talk about how great their new book is every 10 seconds.

It may just be that we have a basic difference here on what it "mainline" or "mainstream" media.

I don't consider any of the cable networks to carry as much weight as the "traditional" on air networks or print media.

I'm pretty sure it is still true that ALL of the cable news networks combined don't match the ratings of the lowest on air networks when it comes to news coverage.

In fact, I pretty much agree with what Shiner says above (that's the second time this month I've agreed with him. I must be getting old or something).

The cable networks, in my opinion, struggle along to "compete," and pray for sensational stories because that's pretty much the only time they get a ratings spike.

And, very much like talk radio, most of the cable "stars" are more interested in hearing themselves talk (or shout) than report legitimate, "ballanced" (with apologies to Roger Ailes) reportage.

So, if it's cable and talk radio that you consider "main," we may not be as far apart as it seems.