That Most Terrorists Aren't Muslim May 'Come as a Surprise'-if You Get Your News From Corporate Media
Since the Al Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001, the New York Times (6/23/15) reports,
extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States.... But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise.
The "surprise" is that more people are killed by "white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims": 48 vs. 26 since 9/11, according to a study by the New America Foundation. (More comprehensive studies cited in a recent New York Times op-ed-6/16/15-show an even greater gap, with 254 killed in far-right violence since 9/11, according to West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, compared to 50 killed in jihadist-related terrorism.)
The Times suggests that "such numbers are new to the public"-but they won't come as much of a surprise to those familiar with FAIR's work. In articles like "More Terror, Less Coverage" (Extra!, 5/11) and "A Media Microscope on Islam-Linked Violence" (Extra!, 8/13), FAIR's Steve Rendall has debunked the claim that terrorism is mostly or exclusively a Muslim phenomenon, pointing out that white, right-wing Christians are responsible for the bulk of political violence in the United States.
But in a piece all about the "mismatch between public perceptions and actual cases," the entity most charged with making sure these match-the news media-doesn't get much scrutiny, except from "some Muslim advocates" who "complain" of media double standards. There is research on this question-such as a study from University of Illinois communications professor Travis Dixon, summarized in the Champaign/Urbana News Gazette (6/23/15):
Between 2008 and 2012, about 6 percent of domestic terrorism suspects were Muslim, or about 1 in 17, according to FBI reports.
But in that same period, about 81 percent of the domestic terrorists described on national cable and network television news programs were Muslim.
Statistics like these would go a long way toward explaining why there might be readers for whom reports of non-Muslim terrorism "come as a surprise."
Reporter Scott Shane does note that instances of white supremacist terror have "drawn only fleeting news media coverage"-citing lethal incidents that FAIR has sought to call attention to, like the massacre at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin (CounterSpin, 8/9/13) and a shooting spree by a far-right couple in Las Vegas (FAIR Blog, 6/13/14). "To revisit some of the episodes is to wonder why" they didn't get more press attention, Shane says-but why wonder why, when you can just, say, ask an editor?
The answers-of sorts-that the piece closes with come not from the media decision-makers who actually choose which violent incidents get spotlighted, but from academic terrorism experts. William Braniff, head of a terrorism think tank at the University of Maryland, asserts:
We understand white supremacists.... We don't really feel like we understand Al Qaeda, which seems too complex and foreign to grasp.
And John Horgan, who studies terrorism at the University of Massachusetts/Lowell, gets the last word, saying of extremist violence: "Very often, it comes from someplace you're least suspecting."
The pronouns do a lot of work in these sentences. Who are "we," exactly, that understand white supremacists so well that we don't have to pay any attention to them; are "we" different from the "you" that doesn't suspect that these well-understood white supremacists might be dangerously violent?
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Since the Al Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001, the New York Times (6/23/15) reports,
extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States.... But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise.
The "surprise" is that more people are killed by "white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims": 48 vs. 26 since 9/11, according to a study by the New America Foundation. (More comprehensive studies cited in a recent New York Times op-ed-6/16/15-show an even greater gap, with 254 killed in far-right violence since 9/11, according to West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, compared to 50 killed in jihadist-related terrorism.)
The Times suggests that "such numbers are new to the public"-but they won't come as much of a surprise to those familiar with FAIR's work. In articles like "More Terror, Less Coverage" (Extra!, 5/11) and "A Media Microscope on Islam-Linked Violence" (Extra!, 8/13), FAIR's Steve Rendall has debunked the claim that terrorism is mostly or exclusively a Muslim phenomenon, pointing out that white, right-wing Christians are responsible for the bulk of political violence in the United States.
But in a piece all about the "mismatch between public perceptions and actual cases," the entity most charged with making sure these match-the news media-doesn't get much scrutiny, except from "some Muslim advocates" who "complain" of media double standards. There is research on this question-such as a study from University of Illinois communications professor Travis Dixon, summarized in the Champaign/Urbana News Gazette (6/23/15):
Between 2008 and 2012, about 6 percent of domestic terrorism suspects were Muslim, or about 1 in 17, according to FBI reports.
But in that same period, about 81 percent of the domestic terrorists described on national cable and network television news programs were Muslim.
Statistics like these would go a long way toward explaining why there might be readers for whom reports of non-Muslim terrorism "come as a surprise."
Reporter Scott Shane does note that instances of white supremacist terror have "drawn only fleeting news media coverage"-citing lethal incidents that FAIR has sought to call attention to, like the massacre at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin (CounterSpin, 8/9/13) and a shooting spree by a far-right couple in Las Vegas (FAIR Blog, 6/13/14). "To revisit some of the episodes is to wonder why" they didn't get more press attention, Shane says-but why wonder why, when you can just, say, ask an editor?
The answers-of sorts-that the piece closes with come not from the media decision-makers who actually choose which violent incidents get spotlighted, but from academic terrorism experts. William Braniff, head of a terrorism think tank at the University of Maryland, asserts:
We understand white supremacists.... We don't really feel like we understand Al Qaeda, which seems too complex and foreign to grasp.
And John Horgan, who studies terrorism at the University of Massachusetts/Lowell, gets the last word, saying of extremist violence: "Very often, it comes from someplace you're least suspecting."
The pronouns do a lot of work in these sentences. Who are "we," exactly, that understand white supremacists so well that we don't have to pay any attention to them; are "we" different from the "you" that doesn't suspect that these well-understood white supremacists might be dangerously violent?
Since the Al Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001, the New York Times (6/23/15) reports,
extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States.... But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise.
The "surprise" is that more people are killed by "white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims": 48 vs. 26 since 9/11, according to a study by the New America Foundation. (More comprehensive studies cited in a recent New York Times op-ed-6/16/15-show an even greater gap, with 254 killed in far-right violence since 9/11, according to West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, compared to 50 killed in jihadist-related terrorism.)
The Times suggests that "such numbers are new to the public"-but they won't come as much of a surprise to those familiar with FAIR's work. In articles like "More Terror, Less Coverage" (Extra!, 5/11) and "A Media Microscope on Islam-Linked Violence" (Extra!, 8/13), FAIR's Steve Rendall has debunked the claim that terrorism is mostly or exclusively a Muslim phenomenon, pointing out that white, right-wing Christians are responsible for the bulk of political violence in the United States.
But in a piece all about the "mismatch between public perceptions and actual cases," the entity most charged with making sure these match-the news media-doesn't get much scrutiny, except from "some Muslim advocates" who "complain" of media double standards. There is research on this question-such as a study from University of Illinois communications professor Travis Dixon, summarized in the Champaign/Urbana News Gazette (6/23/15):
Between 2008 and 2012, about 6 percent of domestic terrorism suspects were Muslim, or about 1 in 17, according to FBI reports.
But in that same period, about 81 percent of the domestic terrorists described on national cable and network television news programs were Muslim.
Statistics like these would go a long way toward explaining why there might be readers for whom reports of non-Muslim terrorism "come as a surprise."
Reporter Scott Shane does note that instances of white supremacist terror have "drawn only fleeting news media coverage"-citing lethal incidents that FAIR has sought to call attention to, like the massacre at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin (CounterSpin, 8/9/13) and a shooting spree by a far-right couple in Las Vegas (FAIR Blog, 6/13/14). "To revisit some of the episodes is to wonder why" they didn't get more press attention, Shane says-but why wonder why, when you can just, say, ask an editor?
The answers-of sorts-that the piece closes with come not from the media decision-makers who actually choose which violent incidents get spotlighted, but from academic terrorism experts. William Braniff, head of a terrorism think tank at the University of Maryland, asserts:
We understand white supremacists.... We don't really feel like we understand Al Qaeda, which seems too complex and foreign to grasp.
And John Horgan, who studies terrorism at the University of Massachusetts/Lowell, gets the last word, saying of extremist violence: "Very often, it comes from someplace you're least suspecting."
The pronouns do a lot of work in these sentences. Who are "we," exactly, that understand white supremacists so well that we don't have to pay any attention to them; are "we" different from the "you" that doesn't suspect that these well-understood white supremacists might be dangerously violent?