Two days ago, Monday, November 10th, a Jordanian man entered a training camp on the outskirts of Amman, Jordan and opened fire, killing 5 people, including two Americans. This is heartbreaking news and of course condolences rolled out to the families of the victims and visits were made to the injured while they recuperated in the hospital. The Obama Administration said the U.S. is working with Jordanian Intelligence to learn the motive behind the incident, and will continue to work closely with the Jordanian government.
My father graciously gave me a subscription to the New York Times for my 18th birthday (he said it was fitting), so of course I have a new "Breaking News" piece pop up on my phone twice or three times a day. It wasn't until dinner Monday evening that I heard about the shooting in Jordan, and I haven't heard much of an uproar about it on my Facebook timeline which really got me thinking about how two Americans could be killed in a Middle Eastern Country without anyone tying Islam to murder, hating America, freedom, pork, etc. the usual stuff that comes with this kind of attack. It dawned on me that I hadn't receive one of the annoying "Breaking News" updates from NYTimes or gotten an email or even seen it on Facebook at some point that day. This all got me thinking about why it might be different this time.
In my opinion it all comes down to media. I'm so shocked and even more glad that is was not pinned as some "Muslim Terrorist" the second he open fire. The media didn't tag him as some Christian-hater who was out to kill Americans even though they could have framed it that way fairly easily.
Really I'm just wondering what made the entire media decide to not label this as a terrorist act? I understand it was not a terrorist act, but they have certainly mislabeled things in the past. Is it they understand the relationship between our countries and how important it is at the moment? Or some other reason?
No comments:
Post a Comment