I got an email from a journalist friend this morning, about the big news of the day, the massacre at Fort Hood in Texas. Here’s what it said:
“While the mainstream media is busy downplaying the shooter’s religion, just think if an O’Reilly or Goldberg book was found in his home or, God forbid, there was a talk station pre-set on his car radio or he once knew a guy who had a cousin who attended a tea party. There would be endless, mindless speculation and convoluted banner headlines about [how] the evil right-wing is sowing hatred and inspiring death.”
He’s right, of course. A lone gunman kills a late term abortion doctor in Kansas and if you watched liberal television or read liberal papers you’d think Bill O’Reilly pulled the trigger. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, liberals blamed conservative talking radio for fomenting an anti-government frenzy. Now we have another catastrophe, but this one is a tad inconvenient for liberals in the media. It turns out the gunman was a Muslim. Uh Oh!
Uh oh, indeed. Don’t believe him? One more quote oughta do it…
You see the media don’t want to jump to any conclusions in this case, especially when they’re politically incorrect conclusions. But they’d jump to conclusions, wouldn’t they, if a white guy with a crew cut and overalls from the rural south walked into a local NAACP office and shot up the place. They’d conclude the guy was a racist. And they’d almost certainly be right. With the Fort Hood story there was sound reason to suspect the killer’s religion played a part in the massacre, and all we got was drivel about how stressed out soldiers are these days.
Yep, I’d say that’s about right.
Read the whole thing. Remember, this isn’t about whether Nidal Malik Hasan did what he did because he was a Muslim. It’s about how the media generally portrays similar stories with little regard for the story targets when they’re not part of a protected group.