Current Events and Media- Blog Post #4

In this day and age, information is placed at our fingertips; tablets, computers, and smartphones provide easy access to breaking news from all over the world in an instant. Because of accessibility, news via media has a large impact on people who use the internet: basically everyone. In America, a hot topic that is often written about on political blogs is terrorism. When a mass shooting, bombing, or civil attack takes place anywhere in the world, we immediately want to know if it is terrorism or not. This issue sparks interest in people of all political views, because it has a large impact on our country, and on the world as a whole. However, when these attacks do occur, different political parties have different ideas on the ways that we should respond to terrorism.

From a Conservative Standpoint: Breitbart

Breitbart is a site online that contains journal articles and blogs written by and for the Conservative audience. There articles are centered around Tax Reform, President Trump, and the war on terror, specifically in the Middle East.

I have chosen to analyze the article "Vegas; When is Terrorism not 'Terrorism'- and Why?" which was posted in October of this year, briefly after a white gunman opened fire during a concert in Las Vegas, injuring over 200 people in what is the largest mass shooting in American history.

In this article, the author addresses the recent mass shooting that took place in Vegas, and takes a stance on the controversy of terrorism or not; he believes that the shooting in Vegas can not be considered terrorism because there has not been a confirmed political or religious motive, and therefore, “ it is impossible to responsibly refer to this attack as terrorist in nature.” This author is saying that although it was an immoral act, it was not motivated by anything that would define it as terrorism. Despite this reasoning that he gives, many believe that the Republicans are only defending it from being called terrorism because the perpetrator was white. This is a justifiable assumption, because Republicans have a reputation for classifying Muslims as terrorists, when terror acts such as this one are committed by white, American citizens. This article acknowledges the accusations made towards the Republicans about favoring white people, and blames “Leftists” for classifying acts like these as terrorism.   

This article is relevant to my topic because currently in politics and society, there is a lot of discussion around terrorism, both domestic and international, and how racism and racial profiling play into this. This article presents the Republican perspective on foreign relations, and about how they think terrorism should have a very strict, precise definition. It is a credible article because it is written by a very popular Republican journalism site, which is certain to post only current, well researched events.

This article sheds light on the Republican views on terrorism because it reinforces the stereotype that Republicans are sympathetic towards the white majority, and that if this crime would have been committed by a minority, the party would have responded more negatively.  They acknowledge that there is a lot of assumption of sympathizing with the perpetrator due to his race, but are quick to defend against this. Although this article claims that race and ethnicity do not make you a terrorist, the article also describes Muslims who commit crimes of terror as, ““Allahu Akbar”-screaming migrants.” This claim shows how Conservatives who read Breitbart generalize people of the Muslim religion as reckless criminals, even though most “Muslims” who commit crimes that are “religiously motivated” do not actually follow the religion. Currently, Republicans view minority cultures only in a negative light; since most terrorists are from this religion, then this whole religion must be bad, and should be kept out of the country. This view also implies that Republicans do not want to enforce more strict screenings that would keep actual terrorists out of the country, and instead would rather resort to banning the entire religion.

The argument of why the Vegas shooting was an act of terror, but not ‘terrorism’ was backed up by the definition of terrorism (“The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence, often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs, to instill fear and coerce governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are usually political.”), which led the author to claim that Paddock, the shooter, had no known religious or political motives, and therefore could not be a terrorist. However, this argument is not convincing because the author acknowledges that they have not yet found a motive, meaning it is still possible that the act could be terrorism. Furthermore, it is safe to assume that the reason Paddock is not being considered a terrorist immediately is because of his skin color. Since he is white, he is not assumed to be a terrorist. Because this is a predominantly Republican news source, the writers are very supportive of protecting the country from “migrants” that could cause heinous crimes and put citizens in danger. Breitbart is biased against minorities, who they blame for endangering the country, and who are assumed to be terrorists due to crimes committed in the past. Since I know that this source is biased, I know that they are trying to inform their readers of the event, but also influence the way that they see crimes committed by different racial and ethnic groups. This article would be more convincing if it were to acknowledge that a majority of Muslims are not criminals, and that most violent crimes committed in the US are by citizens.

From a Liberal Standpoint: Washington Post

Washington Post is a predominately liberal news journal that contains articles that combat the beliefs in Breitbart. Although these two sites are not direct competitors, many of the stances taken by Washington Post are very forward thinking, inclusive, and against the Trump Administration, unlike Breitbart.

The article I have chosen from this site is "The far right turned this Muslim woman into a 'monster' online. That's despicable." This article is focused around the way that Muslims are talked about on social media, and how this feeds the hate culture in the West.

This article calls out the way that media portrays Muslims and Middle Eastern people as ‘monsters,’ and terrorists. Specifically, this article is centered around a photo of a Muslim woman who is on her phone at the scene of the SUV terror attack in Westminster. Although there are other people on their phones as well in the picture, she has been targeted on social media for “not caring” and “being able to walk past the attack.” It was later proven that a second image showed her much more concerned, but people still target her, and other Muslims, to make them look at fault. The article broadens to describe more instances of times where Muslims have been falsely accused on social media, and photo-shopped by “Rightists” to look like terrorists.  The author describes these acts as “despicable,” saying that these false accusations that paint Muslims in a negative light only cause the hate to become stronger. She says that instances like these only prove the hate culture that exists in the West, and this can hurt the people who are targeted severely, despite the truth.

This article is very relevant because when terrorist attacks do happen, media very quickly forms a stance on them, and often, find someone to blame or call out. It is evident by this article that the people who are usually called out are Muslims, which has no benefits, and only makes it harder for society to become inclusive and accepting. This article is also an accurate representation of how Liberals feel about the constant Islamophobia in the media, because the author talks about how it is unjust to “troll” Muslims, and how the people who want to ban Muslims from the country are making up stories to justify their cause. This article is credible because it was posted very recently, meaning that it is up to date with accurate, factual information.

This article reflects the cultural context in which it was written, because it discusses how media is able to alter photos and stories in order to place blame on Muslims. Currently, media is the easiest way to gain information, and the fact that it is highly influential makes stories such as the ones described by this article more accessible for people. The constant attacks on Muslims that surface on the internet only make it easier for people to become convinced that Muslims should be feared. This article also emphasizes how in multiple societies in the world, people would rather blame Muslims as a whole for attacks than find a solution to stop terrorism. This mindset reflects negatively on the way that society sees individuals of different cultures. We have been conditioned to believe that, “[A]ll Muslims hate the West and wish Westerners harm.” The hate towards other cultures in society can only be attributed to the people who are posting these false stories, and who would rather hold the power over minorities by installing fear in people, than learning to accept them.  

The argument in this article is essentially that using media to portray Muslims as terrorists and blaming them for every crime is detrimental to society, and thus, needs to stop. The author uses multiple accounts that show times where innocent people were manipulated by users of social media, and shown as criminals, despite their innocence. This argument was very convincing to me because the amount of stories where this has happened shows that this is a real problem not only in America, but in the world. All of the evidence presented by the author directly showed a pattern of hate towards Muslims, and how that hate can be used to place blame. The most significant piece of evidence that I found in the article was the story at the very end, which was about a man who attacked two nurses that were treating him. When this was posted on social media, the man was described as an immigrant refugee who was receiving care in France. The caption of the video was “We treat them and they are thankful for it, the proof.” This caption was sarcastic,  implying that immigrants who receive care are ungrateful. The author finishes off this story as well as the article with, “ Except. Except the video was shot at a hospital in Russia. The man is not a migrant.” These last few comments about the video emphasize how we assume that the posts on social media are rightfully calling out Muslims, when really, they are being manipulated in order to get viewers to hate immigrants. This was the most convincing part of the article to me, because it showed the extent that people will go to in order to place blame on minorities.

Video of Russian man attacking the nurses: https://twitter.com/tprincedelamour/status/843421609159544836

In conclusion, both Breitbart and the Washington Post have shown how individual's can be influenced by the media's portrayals of Muslims, and how this can affect the attitude towards different cultures in society. If someone were to read the Breitbart article, they would be able to assess the situation based off of the definition of terrorism each time an attack happened. By reading the Washington Post article, viewers of social media may be less likely to always believe the stories posted that show Muslims as criminals. Because social media and the internet play such a large role in people's perspectives on things such as terrorism, it is important that sources provide the most accurate and unbiased information for people to take in.