Not only does the media not currently do that, they’ve never done that.

Everything is easier to fact-check nowadays. and each media outlet is falling over themselves to be first, knowing that can revise online stories without giving any notice or correct themselves without penalty later.

I can think of a dozen examples, but ask yourself who resigned from the media over the pure fiction they were “reporting” to us on the superdome in NOLA during Katrina.

After being told it was “sniper rifles”. “uzis” or “high-powered rifles”, tonight (over 24 hours later, mind you) on my way home tonight the voice of truth said it was a semi-automatic handgun popular with gang members.

The shooter was an Islamic fanatic. The mainstream media will downplay that fact.

Lou wrote: “The shooter was an Islamic fanatic. The mainstream media will downplay that fact.”

I imagine in much the same way that Tim McVeigh was a Christian fanatic.

Do you have any evidence that McVeigh claimed to be doing what he did for Chriatianity?

Lou wrote: “Do you have any evidence that McVeigh claimed to be doing what he did for Chriatianity [sic] ?”

I could ask the same question of you regarding the Ft Hood suspect. There is no indication at this point in time that Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft Hood out of misguided religious conviction, or to promote Islam in any way. Your response seems to be the same knee-jerk reaction that occurs whenever this sort of thing happens.

“There is no indication at this point in time that Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft[sic] Hood out of misguided religious conviction, or to promote Islam in any way.”

Is there enough evidence now or do you still want to deny the shooter’s connection with radical Islam?

Lou wrote: “Is there enough evidence now or do you still want to deny the shooter’s connection with radical Islam?”

Hmmmm…Unless further evidence confirms otherwise, it appears Hasan’s motivations were closer to those of a mass murder, say the guy who returns to his job at the post office with an uzi, rather than those of an “Islamic terrorist”. He was a loner with a history of issues and psychopathic behaviors. It seems he acted alone, not as part of a group in an attempt to further their agenda. His communications with the radical cleric al-Awlaki do not suggest any advancement of radical aims. In fact, groups like al-Qaeda suggest jihadists should keep a low profile, conceal their religious convictions so as not to draw attention to themselves. Hasan did just the opposite.

The Ft Hood incident is truly tragic, and sadly, may have been preventable. But to try to score political points, or smear an entire religious group as a result, is pointless.

I’m not sure “pointless” is the right criticism. I’m pretty sure dehumanizing muslims on the basis of the religion has significant advantages to those who expect to later distract from domestic issues by yet again deciding to bomb somebody. And that’s not evening getting into how a authoritarian state needs to start with the premise that at least some people need torturing.

You ever notice that when a white person does something horrible, deranged, and pathological, the concerted attempt on the part of the media is to point (usually him) as a loner, that is to totally disassociate the subject with other white institutions, organized groups of white people, or even free-standing (probably white) friends. However, whenever a brown person does anything hateful, the first thing the media tries to do is find an association between that person and organized groups of brown people.

Frankly, I haven’t really been following the story since the 24-48 hours after it broke, so don’t know if I’m all that qualified to assert an opinion on anybody’s motives here. But my point is a larger one that makes me skeptical of allegations like this in general.

This is part of why I stopped trying to have intelligent conversations with most everyone on the right. One lunatic goes out and does something insane and then a whole lot of people pop their heads out of their cocoons and spew forth a load of ignorant, xenophobic vitriol about “Islamists” and pillory a billion people, none of whom most of these bigots have ever come in contact with.

Digg:

Right on. I’ve heard some of the nuts on the right are suggesting it’s the responsibility of Muslims the world over to publicly denounce Major Hasan. A quick Google search I did seems to indicate those same folks weren’t all up in arms asking the Pope to apologize for the lunatic who murdered the abortion doctor in Kansas a couple months back. Nosir, it’s much easier for our lazy and sycophantic media to just backup what people already “know”. Try to suggest to a stupid ignorant bigot that they’re, well, a stupid ignorant bigot and they’re liable to change the channel on you.

Dan M. wrote: “I’m not sure “pointless” is the right criticism.”

Point taken. Given the current climate, and the way some people try to fan the hysteria flames, “pointless” was perhaps understated. “Repugnant” and “inappropriate” probably would have been more accurate.

Digglahhh:

I hear ya. And you’re absolutely right that people and the media tend to try to isolate a white lunatic as an anomaly, while others are lumped into some sort of conspiracy. Obviously, my point was less to over-psychoanalyze Hasan than to discredit the idea that he was part of a larger conspiracy. All evidence indicates he acted alone. To suggest he was part of a larger conspiracy is misguided, and would inevitably result in demonizing an entire group of people.

Just to shoot the Kumbaya in the head again to make sure…

Note that in large part the liberal criticism of libertarianism is that it denies that people should ever be associated with their larger group.

But even when there is a real correlation between particular bad behavior and particular groups, which is cause and which is affect is awfully muddy.

Say I really wanted gays to go back to being beaten to death in the streets on a regular basis, it just might seem a good idea to go join a right-wing Christian church. Say I really wanted to blow up people as a complaint against America’s exportation of our vapid culture, it just might seem like a good idea to join a right-wing Muslim church. But it gets even murkier when you realize that a psychopath doesn’t need to join any church or have any affiliation with other people who might stop abject violence. I mean, I don’t need to move to Kansas and get a blessing from Fred Phelps in order to quote his website. (I’m only making this a link so that I can add the rel=nofollow attribute rather than letting the blog software make it an un-flagged link; please, don’t follow it.)

Here’s a true story about the liberal media for you and this very topic. Dan and KTK will remember this one, as this happened a few days before our LL “Board of Directors Meeting” aka the return of the Temperance Movement and I recounted it there.

Several weeks ago I was out for drinks with a reporter who writes for what many would call the king of the liberal media, print-wise at least. This topic of denunciation came up; I don’t recall the context that originally prompted me to get on it. But for some reason, I made an allusion to a Chris Rock bit where he talks about how you haven’t made it as a race until every successful member of that race is no longer compelled to apologize for every dumb action by somebody of the same race. (It’s the same skit where he talks about Jackie Robinson not really breaking the color barrier, because real integration didn’t happen until shitty black players started making it – clearly a joke, but somewhat poignant nonetheless).

Anyway, I mentioned that people still ask Barack Obama to apologize for Al Sharpton, but nobody asks John McCain to apologize for Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, insert right wing blowhard here.

He responded that he didn’t think that Obama felt compelled to apologize for Jesse Jackson. Quite telling of course, because I had mentioned Sharpton. Apparently, there’s not a substantive enough difference between opinionated black people to register.

I quickly replied that Barack Obama wished he was only asked to apologize for people as accomplished and politically legitimate as Sharpton, considering a few days prior CNBC asked Obama what he thought about Kanye West interuping Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the Grammys. Yeah. Kanye Fucking West. Not Cornell West. Kanye West. Barack Obama was denouncing Kanye West… What are the chances that John McCain, had he been elected prez, would have been asked for his opinion about a rapper’s behavior at an award’s show?

Ladies and gentleman, your liberal media elite!

Here’s an interesting article that is pretty much on the money:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=f6084276-5650-4162-be3d-1c320ab707c7

Wow, BU, it took the author you link there a whole six months to completely forget the rather recent history of a radicalized Christian using his religion as an excuse to shoot Dr. George Tiller dead, and he didn’t even have the excuse of PTSD. And that’s only the beginning of the problems with that op-ed.

Interesting how you seem to quickly forget how heavily the media linked the shooter to Christian groups. On here it was the same attitude and it was strongly suggested that any Christians that were against abortion were complicit in the shooting. I would be curious to see where the abortionist shooter referred to his faith as the reason he committed the shooting because that little piece of evidence doesn’t seem to appear anywhere. However, there are many references to the Fort Hood shooter basing his actions solely on his faith.

And out of curiosity, how does one get PTSD when they have never been in a situation that would cause it? At least none that has been reported?

“But even if Hasan was driven to mass murder because he could not bear the idea of serving in a war zone, the cause of his breakdown was his Muslim-ness, not battle stress.”

What exactly does this mean?? What is this “Muslim-ness”, and how does it trump all other factors that may have contributed to the incident. And no, I’m not buying that the mainstream media attributed Tiller’s murder to the Christian-ness (implying it is an opinion or characteristic held by all members of an extremely large group) of the shooter, but rather marginalized him as an anomaly.

“It seems he acted alone, not as part of a group in an attempt to further their agenda.”

So, a person acting alone cannot terrorize people?

/crackling of speakers

Denouncing of Lou, Aisle 2.

(you terrrorize this board with your inane trolling.)

Very mature response.

Word.

Just to up the ante, I had sex with your mother.

But that’s okay, Digg, because you had thought it was his father.