Posted on 11/10/2009 2:04:37 PM PST by keepitreal
[Excerpt discussing the media's initial reaction to Ft. Hood]
A shroud of political correctness settled over the conversation. Hasan was portrayed as a victim of society, a poor soul who was pushed over the edge by prejudice and unhappiness.
There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.
This response was understandable. It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion. But it was also patronizing. Public commentators assumed the air of kindergarten teachers who had to protect their children from thinking certain impermissible and intolerant thoughts. If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.
Worse, it absolved Hasan — before the real evidence was in — of his responsibility. He didn’t have the choice to be lonely or unhappy. But he did have a choice over what story to build out of those circumstances. And evidence is now mounting to suggest he chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.
The conversation in the first few days after the massacre was well intentioned, but it suggested a willful flight from reality. It ignored the fact that the war narrative of the struggle against Islam is the central feature of American foreign policy. It ignored the fact that this narrative can be embraced by a self-radicalizing individual in the U.S. as much as by groups in Tehran, Gaza or Kandahar.
It denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility of evil. It sought to reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment. It wasn’t the reaction of a morally or politically serious nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Does Hasan get the Congressional Medal of Freedom and four Purple Hearts for his action under stress?
:-)
I’m willing to go anywhere for an interesting article!
Sez who?
Even as Brooks is decrying PC idiocy in this case, he can't help himself from legitimizing it...
Notice how the headline editor is putting Rush and Therapy as a dig on Rush Limbaugh.
NYSlimes strikes again.
Excellent excerpting!
Thank you! It was actually a very good article. I was hoping that folks would see that the MSM narrative is changing on this case. Brook’s piece criticizing the initial press reaction, coupled with Bob Schieffer and a handful of other reports, show that the questioning has begun.
That said, I agree with Brooks that the media rush to excuse the actions of a mass murderer are reprehensible and poorly grounded, an attempt to construct a narrative that excludes the inconvenient facts of Hasan's obvious religious motivation. That isn't even a narrative, it's a fairy story. One longs for a narrative that actually does include the facts. One longs for a truth that transcends narrative.
Unless you want to be depressed, skip the reader comments.
Plenty of “America’s evil foreign policy drives Islamic anger” and “ALL extremist religions—especially Christianity—do the same” sort of drivel.
The “intellegent” readers of the NYT know nothing else but the lockstep drivel of their college profs. They don’t know how to think critically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.