Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage

1.	Brian Williams starts showing his comedic side 6:19 PM Nov. 21, 2009
2.	Poynter announces publication of a new collection of newspaper pages 5:37 PM Nov. 21, 2009
3.	Recommendation for Fewer PAP Screens Sure to Set Off Controversy 10:32 AM Nov. 20, 2009
4.	Gene Patterson to Jack Nelson: Save Us a Desk Up There in That Celestial Newsroom 7:03 AM Nov. 20, 2009
5.	Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage 6:19 AM Nov. 20, 2009
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all Diversity at Work feedback

When is Fort Hood Suspect's Faith Relevant in Media Coverage?
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

Sorting options:	most recent	\| author
Display options:	expand all	\| collapse all

Page 1 of 1

And , of course,
Posted by Rajiv Medanki 11/13/2009 8:58:06 AM

the media is right to bring up fundamentalist Christianity/Christians when an abortion doctor gets whacked.

How quickly you forget
Posted by Anonymous User 11/12/2009 3:43:56 PM

Let me know when the media covers an abortion doctor getting murdered without bringing up fundamentalist Christians.

Get real
Posted by Rajiv Medanki 11/11/2009 10:13:25 AM

Mr.Hasan's religion is, in my opinion, the most relevant fact in this story. Saying otherwise is like saying that a Nazi's ideological beliefs have little to do with his attitude towards Jews.

Look at it this way. If Mr. Hasan had been a devout Buddhist or a Franciscan , would this atrocity have occurred?

Absolutely
Posted by Alex Dering 11/11/2009 9:57:04 AM

I find it quite mystifying how a news report could notinclude the suspect's religion in this case. When someone is yelling a religious phrase while shooting people, it kind of forces the issue.

Speaking of force ... one portion of a previous comment mentions, "When misguided efforts at diversity allowed such a deluded individual a commission in the United States Army and close access to soldiers he attempted to proselyte, the system has made his religion relevant."

Isn't the same statement applicable to overly enthusiastic (that's "overly enthusiastic," not "all") adherents of any religion though? And isn't such a thing occurring currently in the U.S. military with proselytizing and intimidation by fundamentalist Christians? Newsweek has an article that links to other pieces on the topic.

Relevant faith
Posted by J.David Knepper 11/11/2009 9:04:43 AM

When radical clerics demonize all Americans as satanic, and one of their adherents shouts the name of his god while murdering defenseless Americans, he has made his religion relevant.

When misguided efforts at diversity allowed such a deluded individual a commission in the United States Army and close access to soldiers he attempted to proselyte, the system has made his religion relevant.

When news gatherers spend too much time agonizing over the fairness of discussing the religion of the killer when his declaration was that religion was his motivation, the news gatherers have made his religion relevant.

We don't know enough
Posted by Alfred Ingram 11/10/2009 4:07:57 AM

Unfortunately, Major Hasan didn'tshout "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" before opening fire. So, while the stress of his job was a definite factoe, he saw his faith as being the major motivation and declared his faith in whathe believed would be his final act. If he'd declared Jesus is Lord and then stsrtied shooting, we'd be justified in wondering if he belongedto some splinter christian sect or had come under extremist influence. There are extremists among christians, jews, hindus, buddhists and probably ethical humanists. Friends of the Earth is considered a terrorist group by the FBI. At this stage we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions or pretending ther are no conclusions.

Religious war
Posted by Harry Eagar 11/9/2009 10:50:24 PM

In case you guys hadn't noticed, we're in a religious war. The religion at war -- or a substantial part of it -- is Islam.

So, the guy's religion is relevant first, last and always.

You should be asking why the chief of staff of the Army is going around warning about backlash, although so far, since Sept. 11, 2001, the instances of backlash against Muslims don't amount to a one-alarm fire in Podunk.

Religion
Posted by Frank Mowry 11/9/2009 10:13:30 PM

It is sad, much of what you wrote is very true. Unfortunately it also goes to the desires of wanting to get the edge on a story, of being the one who is breaking the latest information. Training and lack of professional ethics plays a real role in this area as well.
Religion should never be the focus of these stories, but it is from Jim Jones to David Koresh (not sure I got this name right) death and religion do seem to go hand-in-hand. Especially when some individual or group has managed to hi-jack the religion for their own person agenda.
The best thing we can do as journalists and writers is to look beyond the surface and try to focus on the actual events not speculate or point fingers.
Reporting about beliefs is like reporting about race and cultural backgrounds. They all have a role within the story, but they are not the focus. Unfortunately journalism has often played into the hands of those who wish to blame and point fingers at a specific cause. It has been done to the Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Asian-American and without question the Native Americans.
We as writers and journalist have a responsibility to be more responsible and objective. We need to stop worrying so much about breaking the story and consider what the story actually is and how it impacts our society.
Over the past few years it seems we, the members of the Fourth Estate have let ourselves be side-tracked from informing and focusing more on expoiting.
Hopefully, with articles like this more of us will become more aware and understanding and better able to report the facts and not the myths.

Engaging in unomfortable conversations
Posted by Jack Zibluk 11/9/2009 6:40:18 PM

Angie:

The issues this story raises are indeed uncomfortable ones.

I was raised to believe that when you refer to Bob, the XXXX, he becomes the XXXX, and not Bob, thus dehumanizing him.

I tried to put that philosophy in practice earlier in my journalism and education careers, but my perspective has changed over time. These days, I believe that removing race, gender or whatever from my discourse does not remove it from my audience's conversation. Instead, it removes ME from the conversation while the audience members continue to use whatever stereotypes, epithets, etc that come to mind.

Not addressing issues on audience members' minds doesn't make them go away. Part of diversity is recognizing that not everyone shares your beliefs, and that recogniziton means we have to engage people with uncomfortable beliefs.

So when Maj. Hasan was reported as a suspect, and when reports of his cries of "ali akbar" were published, responsible journalists have a duty to report it. Of course, good reporting carries with it a responsibility to provide context. I believe it would have been just as relevant if the alleged shooter cried something in Aramaic, Hebrew or from the King James Bible or the Upanishads.

As in an tragedy, nothing can replace lives or damage. But if we engage in conversations about race and religion rather than avoiding them, we can move forward.

Engaging thoughts and ideas, even ugly ones, can change them. Ignoring them allows them to fester like any other infection.

Jack Zibluk
Associate professor of journalism
Arkansas State University

Page 1 of 1

View all Diversity at Work feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)