Here I go again talking about politics and religion. Well, truthfully, this post is more about ideas, inquisition, how stories are presented by the media and alleged bias.
It seems everyone complains about media bias. There is endless controversy over what stories get covered, how they are covered and why, with charges of favoritism from all sides.
I suppose I am just another voice adding fuel to that fire. But hopefully I add a bit of helpful reason and rational to the discussion rather than just one more partisan crying foul only when his own side is (in his own mind) treated unfairly.
Two things got me thinking about media bias. The first a couple cartoons and social media comments about the shootings in Chapel Hill that allege it was not being covered adequately. The second the off-topic questioning of an American politician and the way it was presented.
Ho-hum, no story here…
I first heard about the three students killed in North Carolina the morning after (as evidenced by my blog post yesterday) and on the CNN website via my smart phone. The shooting took place “just after 5 p.m. on February 10” and, according to the New York Times, it was early the next day before specific information was available about the shootings:
“In fact, the police did not release the names of the victims or the accused until after 2 a.m. Wednesday; Mr. Hicks turned himself in to sheriff’s deputies in Pittsboro, a few miles away, but it was not clear when. During a court appearance Wednesday, a judge ordered him held without bond. By that point, most major American news organizations had reported the story, but that did not slow the allegations of news media neglect.”
So basically a local homicide became a national news story overnight and that is likely something to do with the unusual nature of the crime. But many complained within that time frame that the story was being ignored and that this was an example of media bias. Here are a few examples I have found from those alleging media bias:
Not every homicide receives widespread attention. It took over a week before the Trayvon Martin shooting was picked up by Reuters and became a hot topic. So, with that as a basis of comparison, the murder of Deah Barakat, Razan Abu-Salha and Yusor Abu-Salha was relatively quick.
Favoritism and presumptions…
If anything the murder of these attractive and ambitious young Americans will receive more attention than similar cases. Beautiful people with promising futures are often are shown preference. Add to that the man who confessed to the murders is an outspoken atheist, the victims identifiably Muslim, and that feeds speculation.
Having myself been raised in a tradition (Christian) where women veil, and having a dear friend (Muslim) who dresses similar to those pictured, I couldn’t help but take interest and wonder if their appearance played a part. I have worried for my sisters and my Muslim friend because of prejudicial views I have heard expressed.
It is probably their appearance, the fact they were killed in the manner they were, the race and the views of the man, that made this a big story. It is understandable the Muslim American community can feel embattled at times and unfairly blamed for the acts of people who do not represent them (terrorists) and thus afraid of reprisals.
However, this case is not necessarily a ‘hate crime’ as some speculate. Yes, the shooter did openly share his views that blamed religious people for violence and (ironically) proclaimed atheism as the solution, but that doesn’t equal a motive.
From available evidence he seemed to be an unreasonable and angry man who may have murdered over a parking dispute. Whatever the motive, it is an act beyond my comprehension and I mourn with those who have lost loved ones to this senseless act of evil.
The other story concerns the Governor of Wisconsin (and potential candidate for President) who was on a visit to discuss trade with British officials. The story headline, “Wisconsin Gov. Walker refuses to answer evolution question,” centers on a question asked that has nothing to do with trade.
The question if Walker “believes in the theory of evolution” seems a rather odd thing to ask a politician. Doubly interesting is that the Associated Press writer felt it necessary to mention Walker’s faith and the occupation of his father, as if those two facts were relevant to the story:
“Walker, an evangelical Christian and the 47-year-old son of a Baptist preacher, also declined to answer a series of questions about foreign policy…”
I’m not really sure how his faith comes into play here, especially as it relates to the Governor trying to keep on topic of trade by not answering irrelevant inquisitions. Maybe somebody can explain the connection between his father and foreign policy, but I’m not understanding it.
What I do suspect, both as the reason scientific theory is being asked about and also why religion is being mentioned, is an attempt to construct a label or pigeonhole Walker. I think it is a classic example of dog-whistle politics in that the intend recipients are supposed to read between the lines and apply a particular stereotype.
The intent is likely to paint the fiscally conservative Walker to voters, who are tired of government expansion and yet not religious, as dogmatic and ignorant. I could be wrong, but when a story that should be about trade becomes one about refusal, theory of evolution and religion, there seems something to be amiss.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder…
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps bias is as well. What we think deservers more or less coverage is probably as much a matter of our own biases as it is of anyone else’s.
Muslims, understandably, take immediate interest when three who share their faith are killed ‘execution style’ by an irreligious man. Me, being a political conservative and religious, know too well the presumptions often made about those of faith and saw some sort of prejudice at work in the Walker story. We take notice when people we identify with in some way are targeted unjustly and we probably miss many instances that counter our own narratives.
The media is undoubtedly biased. The media is produced by people and people are inherently biased. But our personal biases also mess with our own perception of what is important and our judgment of presentation. We need to be as aware of our own potential biases to the same degree we believe others are guilty.