Press Coverage of Ideologically Motivated Slayings

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please tell us which movement he was a member of. Do they have a name? Or is it a general political opinion that he had, in the extreme?

You don't seem to understand the meaning of "movement" in contrast to the meaning of "organization" or "party".

You can see what Wikipedia has to say about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement

But, briefly, "A political movement may be organized around a single issue or set of issues, or around a set of shared concerns of a social group. In contrast with a political party, a political movement is not organized to elect members of the movement to government office; instead, a political movement aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement."

In the case of Roeder, as was pretty plainly stated, he has been active in the hardcore anti-choice movement.

Yes, thank you. I had been confused because the 16:08 poster made reference to an "organized movement" that Roeder was part of. When I had last read about the case (yesterday) I believe the FBI was still trying to establish if there was, or was not, an association with any specific organization or movement. We are clear that there was no association in a political party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will hazard a guess. The recruiter was a military person killed by someone upset with the government. The doctor was a civilian killed in an attempt to undermine civil liberties protected by the constitution. I think that both murders are tragic. However, armed action against the government is expected. Suppression of individual rights is always a shock.

It is tempting to say that this is a left-right thing. But I can imagine equally heavy coverage if a person shot Rush Limbaugh to silence his point of view, or if someone killed the head of a research lab that performed animal testing, in the name of animal rights.

Armed action against the government is expected? Do you think of the fallen recruiter as someone's brother? Someone's son? Or just 'the Man'? What about his individual right to live?


--OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will hazard a guess. The recruiter was a military person killed by someone upset with the government. The doctor was a civilian killed in an attempt to undermine civil liberties protected by the constitution. I think that both murders are tragic. However, armed action against the government is expected. Suppression of individual rights is always a shock.

It is tempting to say that this is a left-right thing. But I can imagine equally heavy coverage if a person shot Rush Limbaugh to silence his point of view, or if someone killed the head of a research lab that performed animal testing, in the name of animal rights.

Armed action against the government is expected? Do you think of the fallen recruiter as someone's brother? Someone's son? Or just 'the Man'? What about his individual right to live?


--OP

I think you misunderstood what I meant by the word "expected". I did not say it was right. I said it was tragic. I meant that. In the last 30 years we have had 594,000 homicides in the U.S. That's nearly 20,000 a year, and they are all tragic even though most of them get nothing more than a paragraph in the crime section of the local paper. So newsworthy and tragic are not equal.

This military person was killed in the line of duty, and that's tragic. But thousands of other military men and women did too in the last few years, without front page news. This story got national coverage because it happened here and not in Iraq or Afghanistan, and that is less common. But why did it not make headlines? Because people know that people in the military or in the police are at risk of being killed, i.e. they expect it to happen. No one expects a doctor to be killed for practicing medicine. No one expects someone to die for exercising their constitutional rights.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate what you are saying. However, my husband is a Marine. Outside of a training incident or an invasion, I do not expect him to be killed stateside 'in the line of duty', period. It is as shocking to me for a military personnel to be slain on American soil in an ideologically motivated attack as an abortion provider. I can understand some disparity in coverage as the whole abortion sides fit neatly into a black and white press paradigm, whereas flaky Muslim assassins in America they seem unable to categorize and thus to comfortably touch--but front page spread versus teeny back page blurb I think speaks volumes to said discomfort. I personally think they need to work harder in the reporting department so they can 'touch' this kind of event.

[Anonymous]

I think that "muslim attack on U.S. soil" is a pretty well-defined news angle at this point.

Really, this is not about who is more deserving of being remembered. Everyone is deserving of being remembered, and if that determined the front page, then we would read about 55 homicides a day and it would cover the first twelve pages of the paper. Take just the little children under five years old, and we would have more than one front page story each and every day.

It is about which is more newsworthy. A doctor killed for practicing medicine is just very rare. It is not a profession that puts you in harm's way. And a doctor killed for exercising a controversial constitutional right is going to get attention.

[Anonymous]

eh....unconvinced. I see what you are saying -- but it still bugs me, just like I am bugged that there also seems to be a higher comfort level with recruiting stations having windows broken, flour thrown on recruiters, and vicious name calling than you would ever see tolerated outside of an abortion clinic. The former is considered 'zany protests' (almost cute!) and the latter a threat to our basic freedoms. Seems like a total double standard. Recruiting in public institutions, working peacefully stateside as a member of the military is not only a constitutional right--it is part of our government. This murder is akin to the ideological murder of a judge or politician. I don't think it is about which victim is more worthy, but I do think they are parallel in some ways--and the fact that the press did not pick them up in the same way actually worked to highlight societal attitude differences for me.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please cite your specific sources.

You know, this "cite your sources" demand has got to be the greatest cop out on the Internet ever. If you don't know enough to compose a proper rebuttal, you just demand to see a source. Have you even read a newspaper in the last two days? You just posted a whole list of quotes without citing a source, yet you want me to provide a source for something that is practically common knowledge?

Well, here it goes:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/tiller_murder_suspects_ties_to_right-wing_extremis.php

This is a secondary source, but all primary sources are documented.

"The 51-year-old resident of Merriam, Kansas has a record as a fanatical anti-abortion activist, who had made at least one other threat against an abortion provider."

"Roeder believed in 'justifiable homicide' -- that is, that it's OK to kill those who facilitate abortions -- according to another anti-abortion activist, Regina Dinwiddie."

Yes, Roeder's family is now saying he has mental health issues. That seems likely. Theodore Kaczynski's brother said the same about him, and it also seems likely. But, Kaczynski still sits in a federal prison, so Roeder shouldn't expect it to be much of a defense.

I was curious for your sources, because I had just read through a slew of articles after doing a Google news search on the guy, and did not see any mention of prior anti-abortion activities. I don't have time to always read the newspaper, but I did take the time to do a search, and the things people were saying were not agreeing with the articles I had seen online. No argument here that the guy did a horrible horrible thing. It was just that the search I performed did not dig up all this "common knowledge".

[Anonymous]

I was yesterday's 11:51 poster, who suggested that the disparity in coverage might be because Roeder was "part, albeit on the extreme, of a large movement." The movement I was thinking of was the general pro-life movement. I did not mean to make any value-judgments, since that movement extends from non-political to fanatically activist, from absolutely non-violent to outright terrorist, and from Democrat to Republican. All I meant was that, from the media perspective, there was a hook to hang the story on. Even if it turns out that he shot Tiller because he thought the guy was having an affair with his wife, the press surely THOUGHT his motivation was to kill an abortionist, and their perception is what governed their coverage.

Also, whether you support what Tiller was doing or despise it, I should think you would admit that the man had "news story" written all over him.

It may certainly be true that every individual paper has conscious and/or unconscious political biases in the decisions about what to cover, but I doubt that is what determined the difference at issue here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:eh....unconvinced. I see what you are saying -- but it still bugs me, just like I am bugged that there also seems to be a higher comfort level with recruiting stations having windows broken, flour thrown on recruiters, and vicious name calling than you would ever see tolerated outside of an abortion clinic. The former is considered 'zany protests' (almost cute!) and the latter a threat to our basic freedoms. Seems like a total double standard. Recruiting in public institutions, working peacefully stateside as a member of the military is not only a constitutional right--it is part of our government. This murder is akin to the ideological murder of a judge or politician. I don't think it is about which victim is more worthy, but I do think they are parallel in some ways--and the fact that the press did not pick them up in the same way actually worked to highlight societal attitude differences for me.

I don't think the press coverage is a vote on our comfort level. No one is comfortable with this, but it barely made a ripple in the local news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/01/AR2009060102350.html

[Anonymous]

Nary a ripple in political spheres either. President Obama and Eric Holder and both life and choice groups came out swinging on Tillman's slaying with an official condemenation and enhanced protection for clinics and those deemed possiblly under threat. No official condemnation or offers of protection for recruiting centers from the Commander in Chief though. This seems a bizarre double standard. Especially from someone who says his goal is to support the troops. So support them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was yesterday's 11:51 poster, who suggested that the disparity in coverage might be because Roeder was "part, albeit on the extreme, of a large movement." The movement I was thinking of was the general pro-life movement. I did not mean to make any value-judgments, since that movement extends from non-political to fanatically activist, from absolutely non-violent to outright terrorist, and from Democrat to Republican. All I meant was that, from the media perspective, there was a hook to hang the story on. Even if it turns out that he shot Tiller because he thought the guy was having an affair with his wife, the press surely THOUGHT his motivation was to kill an abortionist, and their perception is what governed their coverage.

Also, whether you support what Tiller was doing or despise it, I should think you would admit that the man had "news story" written all over him.

It may certainly be true that every individual paper has conscious and/or unconscious political biases in the decisions about what to cover, but I doubt that is what determined the difference at issue here.

Both murders were horrible. I am pro life and I would never lift a hand against, much less a gun, some who believes differently.

The news coverage of the two murders, IMO, reflects the liberal media bias against the media and the war - period. The media largely supports "abortion rights" and just as largely opposes the military and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Any story that would make the military sympathetic - and two guys shot down having a cig outside their office is certainly sympathetic - has to be axed. I am sure they would not have run it at all (opinion) if they could have gotten away with it.

There has been more violence in the polling place (Phila for example, tire slashing in Wisconsin, etc.) than there has been in recent years by pro-life supporters. To insinuate that people who hold pro-life convictions are violent, amoral, terrorists, or just wack jobs is a smear that fits into the liberal narrative - and in no way resembles the truth.

[Anonymous]

I meant to say the media bias against the MILITARY and the wars - sorry.

[Anonymous]

19:43: There is a principle in science called Occam's razor. It says when in doubt, go with the simplest explanation: Tiller was a juicier story.

It the liberal bias were as strong as you think, you'd see splashy coverage of the murder of every black kid in the ghetto and back-sheet for Chandra Levy.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but why was Tiller "juicier"? It was b/cause they deemed it so.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The news coverage of the two murders, IMO, reflects the liberal media bias against the media and the war - period.

Well, this theory just suffered a huge setback because Rachel Maddow just did a very in-depth story on the killing of the soldier. Had my satellite service not just lost its signal due to the rain, I could even tell you what she reported.

Editing to add, this link shows a shorter version of the story that was on TV before my dish went out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31073930#31073930