As I read through the article "After the Horror at Home: Shootings at Fort Hood," I couldn't help but admire how well the writer had presented the facts, interpreted the event but still maintained a high degree of objectivity.The article did a good job of maintaining neutrality. Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan was presented as a murderer not as a radical Muslim who was out to kill in the name of his religion.
The article also covered different reactions to the killings. It pointed out to the fact that there could be more than one explanation to why this happened. The article was informative without leaning to any one side. All arguments were well developed and that to me is what good journalism is. The fact that it acknowledged the bias in right-wing and left-wing interpretations to why this happened was a plus.Here is a direct quote from the article,
"Elsewhere, Americans were grasping for explanations. The most likely is that the killer was merely a deranged and isolated individual. But right-wing bloggers and talk-radio hosts have focused on his religion: he had stopped in a convenience store dressed in a traditional white robe and hat on the morning of the attack, and there were reports that he had yelled “Allahu Akbar” before the shootings. Another interpretation suggests that Major Hasan was suffering from the stressful experience of military service during wartime, even if the psychiatrist had not, yet, been deployed into combat."
This was a good example of framing and how the media can tell people not what to think, but exactly what to think about.It is important especially in events as delicate as Fort Hood to maintain an informed public rather than promoting mindless propaganda without clear facts.
I agree with your blog statements, some media outlets continued to point out his religion, his outfit and what he said "alahu akbar" to make a point...the point I believe they're trying to make is to continue bashing Islam as a religion that tolerates terrorism. The truth is, Islam does condone violence and their leaders need to discourage it instead of acting as if Islam is a peaceful religion, which it clearly isn't. Jihad could be interpreted in many ways, none of it discourages violence.
ReplyDeleteAt the hearts of the religions I have studied is a desire for peace and harmony. All religious teachings can be misinterpreted. But, that does not mean that they promote war. People take what was meant for good and use it for their own selfish desires. For the media to imply and promote the view that one religion promotes war is biased and wrong.
ReplyDelete