The Ft. Hood Fiasco

As I watched the story develop about the Ft. Hood massacre, I got a sinking feeling that the narrative was following a familiar pattern. Even on the venerable old NewsHour, the gunman was being described with words like "loner" and "odd." Whenever something like this happens, we need to establish the otherness of the perpetrator. As if on cue, the spinning and the demagoguery ensued. There were claims that political correctness in the military was to blame or that it was an act of terrorism. As Caroline demonstrated in her post, there was much misinformation available to feed anybody's prejudices.

I was not sure at first what it was in particular that was wrong with the story. I just knew there had to be something more to it that was not getting any attention. Then, an article in Salon by Mark Benjamin caught my eye. Its title, "The Media's Silly Ft. Hood Coverage" offered confirmation for my suspicions. In the article, Benjamin attributes the incident to the failures of the military health care system and blames the media circus on the interest in boosting ratings over reporting the mundane truth. The story itself is not entirely unique. Hasan is not the first military figure to go on a lethal shooting rampage. In 1966, Charles Whitman killed a comparable number of people at the University of Texas. Like Hasan, Whitman had a history of inappropriate behavior and had served time in the military. Lee Harvey Oswald shared these characteristics as well. The difference is that Hasan is a Muslim and this fact offers itself to those who would construct an easy narrative. Why is it that easy stories are so attractive? For a serious journalist, it should be exactly opposite. Any time a story seams too easy, a journalist should assume there is a missing angle to it. It is the ability to do this kind of detached thinking that in many ways defines a true journalist.