Press Coverage of Ideologically Motivated Slayings

[Anonymous]

Yeah, no doubt by now the discrepancy has gotten plain embarrassing. Too bad the President is so tone-deaf. WHO are his handlers? The same ones who picked out the DVD set for the Prime Minister of Britain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, I'm a Catholic but I can see that within the pro-life movement there are some extremists. They aren't supported by the clergy or the major groups, but that's the problem with a movement - no one owns it. I do not think the press is suggesting that all pro-life organizations are violent. That would be like suggesting that all anti-war groups are violent. But wackos do participate in both, and it's a reality that has to be acknowledged.

[Anonymous]

23:58 I totally agree there are fringe elements who are violent, irrational, perhaps even murderous in both the anti-war and pro-life movements, plus I would add the pro-choice movement.

Mr. Mohammed is being portrayed as a militant Muslim loner - he is not being associated with the anti-war movement (which I think would be a stretch) or with any militant Islamic movement (much more the truth).

Roeder is being portrayed as part of the larger pro-life movement. Just portrayed (albeit over and over and over again so it must be the truth because you read it in the newspaper).

If you cannot see the difference, well, I cannot help.

And Jeff - Rachel Maddow's piece was about the failure of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force to pick up either Mohammed or Roeder first. Just a passing reference to Mohammed in the sense that we don't know if he was a loner or part of a larger movement at this time. Plus the obligatory swipe at gun ownership.

For the video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/30509800#31094044

[Anonymous]

Roeder is being portrayed as part of the larger pro-life movement. Just portrayed (albeit over and over and over again so it must be the truth because you read it in the newspaper). [code]

http://www.kansas.com/news/tiller/story/834448.html

Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide.

"I know that he believed in justifiable homicide," said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City abortion opponent who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. "I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn."

Dinwiddie said she met Roeder while picketing outside the Kansas City Planned Parenthood clinic in 1996. Roeder walked into the clinic and asked to see the doctor, Robert Crist, she said.

"Robert Crist came out and he stared at him for approximately 45 seconds," she said. "Then he (Roeder) said, 'I've seen you now.' Then he turned his back and walked away, and they were scared to death. On the way out, he gave me a great big hug and he said, 'I've seen you in the newspaper. I just love what you're doing.' "

Roeder also was a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated the justifiable homicide position, said publisher Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines.

"I met him once, and he wrote to me a few times," Leach said. "I remember that he was sympathetic to our cause, but I don't remember any details."

Leach said he met Roeder in Topeka when he went there to visit Shelley Shannon, who was in prison for the 1993 shooting of Tiller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Roeder is being portrayed as part of the larger pro-life movement. Just portrayed (albeit over and over and over again so it must be the truth because you read it in the newspaper).

http://www.kansas.com/news/tiller/story/834448.html

Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide.

"I know that he believed in justifiable homicide," said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City abortion opponent who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. "I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn."

Dinwiddie said she met Roeder while picketing outside the Kansas City Planned Parenthood clinic in 1996. Roeder walked into the clinic and asked to see the doctor, Robert Crist, she said.

"Robert Crist came out and he stared at him for approximately 45 seconds," she said. "Then he (Roeder) said, 'I've seen you now.' Then he turned his back and walked away, and they were scared to death. On the way out, he gave me a great big hug and he said, 'I've seen you in the newspaper. I just love what you're doing.' "

Roeder also was a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated the justifiable homicide position, said publisher Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines.

"I met him once, and he wrote to me a few times," Leach said. "I remember that he was sympathetic to our cause, but I don't remember any details."

Leach said he met Roeder in Topeka when he went there to visit Shelley Shannon, who was in prison for the 1993 shooting of Tiller.

So your point is that he spoke to two pro-life activists (calling him anti-abortion is a literary device much like me calling you pro-abortion) and subscribed to a magazine - hence he represents the pro-life movement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... (calling him anti-abortion is a literary device much like me calling you pro-abortion) ...

That's the one totally honest term in the whole batch. Nobody is anti-life or anti-choice, so pro-life and pro-choice are just spin. And nobody actually likes abortions, so pro-abortion is a lie. But millions of people proudly oppose abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:23:58 I totally agree there are fringe elements who are violent, irrational, perhaps even murderous in both the anti-war and pro-life movements, plus I would add the pro-choice movement.

Mr. Mohammed is being portrayed as a militant Muslim loner - he is not being associated with the anti-war movement (which I think would be a stretch) or with any militant Islamic movement (much more the truth).

Roeder is being portrayed as part of the larger pro-life movement. Just portrayed (albeit over and over and over again so it must be the truth because you read it in the newspaper).

If you cannot see the difference, well, I cannot help.

And Jeff - Rachel Maddow's piece was about the failure of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force to pick up either Mohammed or Roeder first. Just a passing reference to Mohammed in the sense that we don't know if he was a loner or part of a larger movement at this time. Plus the obligatory swipe at gun ownership.

For the video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/30509800#31094044

I think you are reading slant into this because this is a political position close to you. In fact it's Muslims who have been barraged with the accusation that they are unpatriotic or violent or connected to terrorists because of the actions of fringe elements. For the last eight years, American Muslims have been on the complete defensive. So to argue that somehow the press has a bias that prevents them from taking this angle, well it just doesn't explain the last decade of American journalism. It's more plausible that Mohammed is a loner story.

[Anonymous]

I think you are reading slant into this because this is a political position close to you. In fact it's Muslims who have been barraged with the accusation that they are unpatriotic or violent or connected to terrorists because of the actions of fringe elements. For the last eight years, American Muslims have been on the complete defensive. So to argue that somehow the press has a bias that prevents them from taking this angle, well it just doesn't explain the last decade of American journalism. It's more plausible that Mohammed is a loner story.

Oh my--CAIR poster here? There is no large movement committed to killing abortion doctors. There is a large movement committed to the annihilation of 'symbols of the West'--you know, military, cartoons that represent free speech, random tourists... called jihad. I surely hope (and know) it does not represent the Muslim Faith, rather a distortion of faith--but I wish CAIR spent more time pointing that out than going on the defensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my--CAIR poster here? There is no large movement committed to killing abortion doctors. There is a large movement committed to the annihilation of 'symbols of the West'--you know, military, cartoons that represent free speech, random tourists... called jihad. I surely hope (and know) it does not represent the Muslim Faith, rather a distortion of faith--but I wish CAIR spent more time pointing that out than going on the defensive.

You may be correct in the particular facts you put forth. But, whether they were right or wrong to do so, I still think it likely that the media saw Roeder as a wacko who was involved the pro-life movement, rather than the kill-abortionists movement, and that they saw Bledsoe/Muhammad as an isolated wacko, rather than a member of the destroy the west movement.

BTW, I think jihad translates better as "holy quest" than as "holy war". Those who are engaged in the movement you describe may consider it a jihad, but I think it is a misnomer for us to call it that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you are reading slant into this because this is a political position close to you. In fact it's Muslims who have been barraged with the accusation that they are unpatriotic or violent or connected to terrorists because of the actions of fringe elements. For the last eight years, American Muslims have been on the complete defensive. So to argue that somehow the press has a bias that prevents them from taking this angle, well it just doesn't explain the last decade of American journalism. It's more plausible that Mohammed is a loner story.

Oh my--CAIR poster here? There is no large movement committed to killing abortion doctors. There is a large movement committed to the annihilation of 'symbols of the West'--you know, military, cartoons that represent free speech, random tourists... called jihad. I surely hope (and know) it does not represent the Muslim Faith, rather a distortion of faith--but I wish CAIR spent more time pointing that out than going on the defensive.

What the heck is CAIR? I am not CAIR. And I'm sorry, but Muslims got the raw deal over the last decade of reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my--CAIR poster here? There is no large movement committed to killing abortion doctors. There is a large movement committed to the annihilation of 'symbols of the West'--you know, military, cartoons that represent free speech, random tourists... called jihad. I surely hope (and know) it does not represent the Muslim Faith, rather a distortion of faith--but I wish CAIR spent more time pointing that out than going on the defensive.

You may be correct in the particular facts you put forth. But, whether they were right or wrong to do so, I still think it likely that the media saw Roeder as a wacko who was involved the pro-life movement, rather than the kill-abortionists movement, and that they saw Bledsoe/Muhammad as an isolated wacko, rather than a member of the destroy the west movement.

BTW, I think jihad translates better as "holy quest" than as "holy war". Those who are engaged in the movement you describe may consider it a jihad, but I think it is a misnomer for us to call it that.

OK. Fair enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are reading slant into this because this is a political position close to you. In fact it's Muslims who have been barraged with the accusation that they are unpatriotic or violent or connected to terrorists because of the actions of fringe elements. For the last eight years, American Muslims have been on the complete defensive. So to argue that somehow the press has a bias that prevents them from taking this angle, well it just doesn't explain the last decade of American journalism. It's more plausible that Mohammed is a loner story.

Oh my--CAIR poster here? There is no large movement committed to killing abortion doctors. There is a large movement committed to the annihilation of 'symbols of the West'--you know, military, cartoons that represent free speech, random tourists... called jihad. I surely hope (and know) it does not represent the Muslim Faith, rather a distortion of faith--but I wish CAIR spent more time pointing that out than going on the defensive.

What the heck is CAIR? I am not CAIR. And I'm sorry, but Muslims got the raw deal over the last decade of reporting.

If the press reports on terrorist activities by people who call themselves Muslims, why on earth would you think--as a Muslim who does not engage in such activities -- that you are getting a raw deal? It does not make any sense. The self-proclaimed jihadi's have killed more Muslims than any other group-- why would you not want the press to report on them? Why do you infer an association? No one else does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are reading slant into this because this is a political position close to you. In fact it's Muslims who have been barraged with the accusation that they are unpatriotic or violent or connected to terrorists because of the actions of fringe elements. For the last eight years, American Muslims have been on the complete defensive. So to argue that somehow the press has a bias that prevents them from taking this angle, well it just doesn't explain the last decade of American journalism. It's more plausible that Mohammed is a loner story.

Oh my--CAIR poster here? There is no large movement committed to killing abortion doctors. There is a large movement committed to the annihilation of 'symbols of the West'--you know, military, cartoons that represent free speech, random tourists... called jihad. I surely hope (and know) it does not represent the Muslim Faith, rather a distortion of faith--but I wish CAIR spent more time pointing that out than going on the defensive.

What the heck is CAIR? I am not CAIR. And I'm sorry, but Muslims got the raw deal over the last decade of reporting.

If the press reports on terrorist activities by people who call themselves Muslims, why on earth would you think--as a Muslim who does not engage in such activities -- that you are getting a raw deal? It does not make any sense. The self-proclaimed jihadi's have killed more Muslims than any other group-- why would you not want the press to report on them? Why do you infer an association? No one else does.

I don't want the press to stop reporting on terrorism. It is that they conflate Islam with these terrorists. When reporting on violence in Ireland, the press reported it as IRA violence, not Catholic violence, even though the IRA was full of Catholics and the conflict was divided along religious lines. If we report on homicides by blacks, the headline doesn't read "black guy kills white woman". It may include that fact in the paper. But it is not the label affixed to the killer. When looking at Israel, actions are ascribed to political groups like Hamas or Fatah or Israel (not "Jews") or Hezbollah.

Have you ever wondered why they are called Islamic extremists instead of being primarily identified by their political, military, or national affiliation? It's because the terrorists want to claim the banner of Islam to justify what they do, because our last President wanted to capitalize on fear of Islam to coalesce support for his cause, and the press is all too happy to go along with it because it helps make sense of things.

Who gets caught in the middle? The average practicing muslim, who is now looked at with suspicion by his own countrymen because there are a handful of people within a religion of a billion faithful who do bad things. It is palpable how our country has become suspicious of Muslims, and it's all because the "them" we are fighting is described as Islamic Extremists.

And for the record, I'm Catholic.

[Anonymous]

OK--but the discussion under question is who belongs to a large movement. The murderer of the recruiter arguably belongs to a far larger movement than the murderer of the abortionist. How would you label him, and other murderers who call themselves Muslim and are motivated by a sense of injustice and anti-western sentiment, so the term 'Muslim' is not co-opted? Do tell and we can all adopt your term.

[Anonymous]

And by the way, I have taken pains in every post on this to say he is not to be confused with a Muslim except in a self-declared way. But if you have a handy acronym do tell. We might suggest it to the President who seems on a spree of coinages right now. I understand what you are saying, however I don't think such incidents should be a) under-reported because they might 'offend' or b) minimized by suggesting that there is not a large group of loosely bound people dedicated towards ill-will towards, well, symbols of western governance and willing to use violence as a form of expressing said ill-will. To call him a lone crazy is to suggest that there is not a group that would happily claim him; in fact, there is.