In response to a Kicker post I wrote yesterday evening—which warned against making assumptions about the as-yet-unknown motivations of the Fort Hood gunman sheerly by virtue of his Muslim-sounding name—I received (in addition to reactions both thoughtful and non- in the post’s comments thread) the following e-mail:
Megan, ‘stories’ such as yours clearly demonstrate why liberal media is in the sewer. What a warped mind you have. Grow up and discover that your leftist mind is muddled. I laugh to think that some minds like your yours believe that Sharia would be good for this country. Where do you think that homosexuals and abortionists would stand under any moslim justice system? They would be executed. When you reach the enlightened understanding that ALL of the islam world is the enemy of Christianity and any other belief system other than islam, you will have a better understanding or the requirements to protect God-fearing Americans against Islam and the wonks who believe they are “peaceful”.
Of course, I never said or suggested that “Sharia would be good for this country.” The post was about Islamic law only in the broadest of cultural contexts; had the email’s author read it closely (or: at all?), he would have seen that I was merely warning against the press’s tendency, in a hectic, breaking-news situation, to draw conclusions based on insufficient evidence, thus skewing the first rough draft of history. But E-mail Author managed to do exactly what I was hoping the media wouldn’t: wantonly assume, then wantonly assail. He read what he wanted to into my words—either willfully or blindly, and frankly I’m not sure which is worse—and then unfurled ideology-driven invective based on that misreading.
Seems a nicely apt metaphor for the state of our National Conversation, does it not? Sigh.
When I read your original piece this morning, I was appalled by the comments left by other readers. It's depressing, watching the state of discourse in this country dwindle into ignorance, anger, and mean-spiritedness. What can any of us do to try to turn the tide?
Posted by laura k on Fri 6 Nov 2009 at 04:28 PM
Hey Megan,
You don't like the state of our national conversation? Prove it. Dean Starkman instigated another round of filth on the very pages you share.
Will you do something about it? Or continue to clutch your pearls?
Posted by Fen on Fri 6 Nov 2009 at 08:12 PM
Seriously Megan, as you claim this is such an important issue for you, I'd like to know how you can continue to share a site with someone who tosses out the "teabagger" slur. What will you do? At the very least, express your displeasure to your superiors?
Else, why take your initial complaint seriously?
Posted by Fen on Fri 6 Nov 2009 at 08:32 PM
Megan,
The post you selected was, of course, wrong and hateful. But simply choosing an outlier post among many dozens does not make the rest of the comments any less valid.
The tendency of the press and other institutions to bend over backwards to avoid offending certain groups (Muslims not Christians, gays not conservative protesters) distorts the news. Many press outlets immediately assumed post traumatic stress disorder was to blame, thus conveniently placing the blame on Iraq, Bush, etc. This is the MSNBC theory. I have heard few complaints at CJR about jumping to that conclusion.
Here’s my concern about Political Correctness. Under pressure from the media and liberal advocates, and threatened with lawsuits, organizations may willfully refuse to recognize Muslim extremism when they see it. From the reports now emerging, it sounds like there were plenty of signals that this guy was, at the least, suspect and should not have been allowed to be walking around a military base with loaded weapons.
No, not every outlier is a Muslim radical. But some are. And if we don’t take action on it people will die.
Correction; people have already died.
Posted by JLD on Fri 6 Nov 2009 at 08:43 PM
You know who else never said or suggested that “Sharia would be good for this country?"
That's right.
Hitler.
Posted by JN on Sat 7 Nov 2009 at 12:21 AM
Ms. Garber, don't overrate the importance of cranky responses like the one you got in this case. Before the Information Age, columnists rarely got to hear any of the tangential, inapposite rants their writings probably inspired. It's to be expected that if enough people read something, at least a few of them are going to react that way. But they don't represent the "state of the discourse".
Posted by D. B. on Sat 7 Nov 2009 at 07:33 PM
To all the conservatives who are ranting about Political Correctness and not being afraid to extrapolate the inclination of many from the actions of one, I somewhat agree. If muslims are engaging in violent rhetoric and revolutionary speech, there should be public pressure to tone it down and an eye kept on the individuals that are most adamant.
Especially when they shoot cops in Pittsburgh or guards in holocaust museums or congregations of Unitarian churches or cause a 400% increase of presidential threats:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html
Oh, wait. Those were right wing conservatives, the ones who flipped out when homeland security used inciteful speech and actions to identify potential sources of terrorism to monitor.
Conservatives should be very careful about what they say about muslims because everything they're saying about monitoring the potentially violent muslims could easily be applied to them. What they're saying about taking the actions of a few individuals and extending them to cover a large body is very easy to do, especially when teabaggers are walking around with loaded guns to presidential events and demonstrations while anti-immigrant patriot leaders are shooting up the families of poor hispanics.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/23/arizona.slaying.minutemen/
And, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not against increased monitoring of inciteful speech. I'm an equal opportunity "keep an eye on crazy people" supporter. Aren't all of you?
Posted by Thimbles on Sat 7 Nov 2009 at 10:36 PM
David Frum, I don't agree with you on much and you're a nasty fellow to argue with, but you make a good point:
http://www.frumforum.com/the-shootings-at-fort-hood
and you're the most sensible of the conservative movement these days.
Posted by Thimbles on Sat 7 Nov 2009 at 10:54 PM