I concur with Ta-Nehisi Coates - the media folks who are not hyper-ventilating over Nidal Malik Hasan's religion are doing the right thing. Coates said this on The Atlantic blog:
If we grant that Hasan was motivated by religion, what does that actually tell us? What is there beyond the fact that people will, at times, interpret religion as a justification to commit heinous acts?
Coates is responding to Jeff Goldberg who thinks the media is not making enough of a ruckus over Nidal Malik Hasan's religion. Goldberg said this on The Atlantic blog:
But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims.
Jeff Goldberg is wrong. Too much is made of religion when a violent crime is committed by a Muslim. At the very least, more is made of religion when a violent crime is committed by a Muslim. The media coverage back in June 2009 over the fratricide in Arkansas and the murder of a physician in Kansas is an excellent example of this - in the former the alleged shooter's religion (Islam) was an immediate center-piece of the media coverage and in the latter the alleged shooter's religion (Christianity) was completely downplayed.
The coverage over the Ft. Hood massacre has been spotty. Last night Lou Dobbs (I know, not the paragon of journalistic integrity) actually said something like "Since Nidal Malik Hasan's religion is tangentially related tot he shootings, this case should be treated as terrorism." Huh? There is a long ways to go before American Muslims get the fair treatment they deserve. Until then it is up to American Muslims to continue speaking out and saying what they stand for - especially when a co-religionist is alleged to have done something as vile as murder.
Comments