When it came to light that Anders Behring Breivik was
responsible for the heinous acts of terrorism in Norway — which,
as of this writing, claimed the lives of 76 people last Friday —
the New York Times wasted no
time in putting forward a narrative.
Consider a few of these headlines from The Gray
Lady:
“Oslo
suspect wrote of fear of Islam and plan for
war”
“Norway
Attacks Put Spotlight on Rise of Right-Wing Sentiment in
Europe”
“Killings
in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in
U.S.”
The Times notes how Breivik followed
writers who were critical of Muslim jihadists and their influence,
most notably Robert Spencer. The article, written by Scott Shane,
suggests that Spencer’s writings and those of others
“indirectly fostered the crimes in Norway.” But as Mark
Steyn so pointedly asked, “So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan
Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan
Scandinavians, that’s now an ‘Islamophobic’ mass murder?” Steyn
further notes, “As far as we know,
not a single Muslim was among the victims.” But facts be
damned. The New York Times has a
narrative it must pursue.
Shane’s article also resuscitates the infamous 2009
Department of Homeland Security report which claimed that the
combination of the recession and the election of Barack Obama as
President would foment right-wing violence in this country. Despite
having no evidence to support its assertion, the report repeatedly
warned that “returning military veterans” were susceptible to
being recruited to unleash another Oklahoma City. Amidst an
uproar, the report was subsequently withdrawn by Homeland Security
chief Janet Napolitano. Despite this report being disavowed,
the New York Times is clearly
pulling out all the stops on this story.
John Guardiano, my colleague from The
American Spectator, also cites a couple of
New York Times headlines —
“As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian
Extremist,” and
“Right-Wing Extremist Is Charged in Norway.” Guardiano
notes the latter headline was amended from “Christian
Extremist Is Charged in Norway.” He writes, “That’s
better, but still not quite right.”
Well, I think you get the idea. But now let’s
consider these headlines from the New York
Times in the wake of the Fort Hood Massacre in November
2009:
“Army Doctor
Held in Ft. Hood
Rampage”
“Mass Shooting at Fort
Hood”
It is worth noting that the stories which followed
these headlines did not identify Hasan as a Muslim. Indeed, the
first article which cites Hasan’s military records notes he had “no
religious preference.”
But this was perhaps the New
York Times’ most egregious headline where
it concerned Fort Hood:
“Little Evidence of Terror Plot in Base
Killings”
This was the story that attempted to put forth the
narrative that Hasan was suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder after counseling veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq.
The New York Times was
essentially touting the line, “Terror plot? What terror
plot?”
In the exceedingly unlikely event I was ever
bestowed the responsibility of writing headlines for
the New York Times here’s a
headline I would have been far more inclined to use with regard to
Nidal Malik Hasan’s actions. To wit:
“Army Doctor Kills 13 at Ft. Hood; Shouts
‘Allahu Akbar!!!’”
Even the Guardian
acknowledged that Hasan had shouted “Allahu Akbar!!!”
in one of its headlines. But for those liberals and socialists
who are easily offended at such incendiary language let me offer a
couple of different headlines:
“Major,
Self-Described ‘Soldier of Allah’, Massacres Fellow Soldiers at Ft.
Hood”
Or perhaps you might prefer:
“Major Who Killed Fellow Soldiers Consulted
Jihadist Web Sites”
Indeed, ABC News
used a headline which both acknowledged Hasan identifying
himself as a “Soldier of Allah” and his frequent use of jihadist
websites.
Now please consider this headline concerning Major
Nidal Malik Hasan’s impending military trial which was published on
July 20, 2011. Keep in mind this headline was published scarcely 48
hours before the terror attacks in Norway:
“Major is
Arraigned in Fort Hood Killings”
So here we are twenty months after the Fort Hood
Massacre and the New York Times
still cannot bring itself to describe Hasan as an extremist, a
jihadist let alone a Muslim. I guess
the Times believes that
such descriptions of Hasan, although accurate, are unfit to
print.
When the New York Times
has acknowledged Hasan’s Muslim background it has done so in this
manner:
In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be
important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact
that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the
Middle East.
President Obama was right when he told Americans,
“we don’t know all the answers yet” and cautioned everyone against
“jumping to conclusions.”
Yet the New York
Times spares not a moment’s hesitation in “drawing
prejudicial conclusions” when using the words “right-wing,”
“Christian” and “extremist” to describe Breivik.
So where does that leave us? I do not want to
downplay the significance of what Breivik has done. After all, he
wantonly killed children. If anyone is deserving of execution it is
surely Anders Behring Breivik. But since there is no death penalty
in Europe, Breivik is assured of three square meals a day for the
rest of his life.
If Breivik’s politics were the driving factor or
played a role in his actions then by all means the
New York Times and other media outlets ought
to subject his views to thorough scrutiny. Especially if it turns
out that Breivik did not plan this dastardly deed on his
own.
But the New York
Times does both its readers and the general public a
grave disservice if they refuse to scrutinize the likes of Nidal
Malik Hasan in the same manner while downplaying the ongoing global
threat of Islamic terrorism.
