Mall Shooting

[shinerbock]

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.

[DeltAlum]

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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?