We don’t know yet who planted the Boston Marathon bombs. Maybe it was a crazy loner. Maybe it was someone affiliated with a right-wing militia group. Maybe it was Islamic jihadists (The Week has a nice rundown of the current theories).
In a knowledge vacuum, though, the public will speculate that acts of terror arise from the group they fear most. And right now, that group is Muslims. Some early coverage already reported that police were questioning a Saudi man as a suspect—which turned out to be not quite true.
If investigators discover that the the bomber is an Islamic jihadist, of course we should say that. But until we know for sure, we should be wary about speculating. Because when reporters and commentators jump too quickly to the conclusion that “bomb” equals “Arab” or “Muslim” then the public can follow our lead, to disastrous effect.
David Gibson and Lauren Markoe of the The Religion News Service point out that immediately after the attacks, Muslim groups, in a “familiar race against time,” sent out press releases condemning the attacks in an effort to remind Americans that not all Muslims are terrorists. Even so, Gibson and Markoe noted, conservative talk show hosts quickly decided Muslims were to blame. Glenn Beck said that “no American citizen blows up random people,” conveniently forgetting Timothy McVeigh, and regular Fox News guest Erik Rush tweeted, “Let’s kill them,” meaning Muslims.
This hysteria, partly stirred by media types, is why Muslim Americans are praying, “Please, let it not be a Muslim,” said UCLA professor Khaled A. Beydoun, commenting in Al Jazeera. Violence against Muslims escalated after 9/11—the FBI reported a 1,700 percent increase in hate crimes after the attacks—and 10 years later, that violence is still “spiraling out of control,” says analyst Murtaza Hussain in an opinion piece on AlJazeera.com.
We need to find a balance between talking about who was responsible for terrorist acts and why they were committed, and providing enough context so that people don’t start targeting one ethnic or religious group for vengeance. We must also calm the flames when we can. The Washington Post demonstrated how this is done by being quick to correct the stories that an injured Saudi man was a suspect, saying the police now considered him to be a witness. Fox News, after calling the Saudi man “deceptive” on Fox and Friends, likewise did the right thing by running a story online saying the Saudi King condemned the violence. The effect of both stories was to point out that the majority of Muslims and Arabs are not bad people.
But we can go further. One of the most thoughtful pieces on the need to abstain from making a premature Muslim-terrorism connection came from Robin Abcarian in the Los Angeles Times. She quoted the leader of one Muslim group who said that they “are often unfairly criticized for failing to raise their voices against violence. But even when they raise their voices, he said, they have trouble being heard.”
If they have “trouble being heard” it’s because we in the mainstream press aren’t listening. We’re not printing the stories of ordinary, frightened, Muslim witnesses, for example, like Arab News did. Or worse, we print stories that ooze suspicion of Arabs and Muslims. One of the biggest offenders was the New York Daily News. A piece that seemed to be debunking the Saudi-as-suspect story was illustrated with a large photo torn from Facebook of the man in question holding a gun, despite the availability of other images. But why have a photo—or use the man’s name—at all? That just sets him up for harassment. The man was innocent, and a victim. Leave him be.
Considering the day--Patriotic Day--and the Marathon race, I was guessing and seem to be more right that I would like--the suspects are more likely to be white American males. The few done by middle eastern men were done in open areas but not big crowds, Big crowds means too many witnesses and too likely to pick one not their own--therefore like the Indian man and the Saudi man questioned--too obvious. An announcer on MSNBC mentioned that the Indian man was very nervous. So?? Wouldn't you be after a bombing went off and police stop you because you are injured??? Just being there--whoever one is--will most likely be nervous in appearance in answering the police. Police in these situations anywhere are definitely not Miss Polly in their manner to those being questioned--no matter who he/she is. Besides most people there were nervous simply wondering whether or not another bomb may go off before they are out of the area and into some place a little safer. Like the author illustrates, a person's skin tone or manner of dress does not make them guilty. If the pictures the FBI have of 2 men in jackets and back packs are correct, these two men are both white. One is a little darker in skin tone but that may mean his ethnicity is Greek or Italian or another country from which his great grandparents left decades ago. My mother was his skin tone and she came from Lichtenstein. We must get off judging people by their ethnicity in terms of right or wrong, legal or illegal innocent or guilty. It's seldom right.
#1 Posted by Trish, CJR on Fri 19 Apr 2013 at 02:07 AM
You use that term — jihadist — rather cavalierly. What does it even mean? Can you imagine how it comes off to folks who live by a nuanced, spiritual understanding of jihad? I hope you're not inadvertently parroting the mindless, bigoted language of neocon pundits et al.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 19 Apr 2013 at 03:51 AM
"Considering the day--Patriotic Day ... the suspects are more likely to be white American males. ... We must get off judging people by their ethnicity in terms of right or wrong, legal or illegal innocent or guilty. It's seldom right."
Double standards much?
"Big crowds means too many witnesses and too likely to pick one not their own--therefore like the Indian man and the Saudi man questioned--too obvious."
But being a "white American male" would be just obvious enough?
Hey, what about all the "white American males" — and other humans — in the FBI, CIA, DHS, etc.? How's that for not too obvious on Patriots' Day?
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 19 Apr 2013 at 03:58 AM
Well, on the plus side for people like David Sirota and Jennifer Vanasco the two terrorist were Chechens so being from the Caucuses that are indeed caucasian. The bad news for Sirota, Vanasco and Co. is that, yes, they are Muslims.
I do understand the desire for the left to have these terrorists be “right wing ‘mericans” … it would help them transform political and ideological opponents into true enemies of the state.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 19 Apr 2013 at 03:25 PM