First things first: I agree with a lot of Hugh Burns’ article. I agree with his condemnation of the farcically sub-par journalism which accused al-Qaeda of the recent atrocious attacks in Norway. I agree with him that news shouldn’t been reduced to easily digestible narratives that undermine the complexity of the issues at stake. But ultimately it fails to tackle a fundamental problem at the heart of much of the media coverage: the absolute double standard between the coverage of Islamic “terrorists” and Western “gunmen”.
The most powerful example of this is the tendency of certain elements of the global media — notably among our friends across the pond — to continue emphasising the problem of Islamic terrorism in relation to the shocking events in Norway even after al-Qaeda was shown to have played no role in the attack. While Burns was right to castigate The Sun for their terrible front-page, at least they had the good sense to drop all mention of al-Qaeda in their subsequent online coverage. After such a humiliating mistake, who wouldn’t? Enter the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. Having erroneously cited the tragedy as “a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists,” she sparked fierce rebukes calling for her apology. Did she aplogise? No. Did she drop the item altogether? Nuh-uh. Did she write the following?
“That the suspect here is a blond Norwegian does not support the proposition that we can rest easy with regard to the panoply of threats we face or that homeland security, intelligence and traditional military can be pruned back. To the contrary, the world remains very dangerous because very bad people will do horrendous things. There are many more jihadists than blond Norwegians out to kill Americans, and we should keep our eye on the systemic and far more potent threats that stem from an ideological war with the West”
— in other words, did she continue to maintain that the events in Norway, as unconnected and unrelated to Islamic terrorism as they were, were still a sobering reminder for those who still think it’s too expensive to wage war against jihadists? You betcha. Steve Clemons makes the more logical inference that ideology analogous to Rubin’s own may have more explanatory power than radical Islam does regarding this attack.
Rubin also made a distinction between “lone-wolf domestic terrorists” and “organised jihadists” which highlights another trend in the media, and one that Burns is perhaps complicit in, if not guilty of. I imagine that he would apply the same level headed analysis to an Islamic terrorist atrocity, and this would show admirable consistency. However, the trouble is that large chunks of the media don’t apply such consistency, and by down-playing the role of ideology, he does the job of those less level-headed than he for them. Such people imply the lone-wolf is a one-off, who we need to analyse the psychological history of, whose thoughts and writings are mad rather than evil. Such people are nothing to be concerned about in the broader picture. On the other hand, jihadists, according to this account, are all engaged in an unceasing war against the West, are the embodiment of evil, they hate us. They aren’t afforded the same psychological leeway. Not that they should be, but some consistency which is not contingent on skin colour or religion might not be such a bad thing. Glenn Greenwald put it best on Democracy Now!:
“And what’s really amazing is, you know, every time there’s an act of violence undertaken by someone who’s Muslim, the commentary across the spectrum links his Muslim religion or political beliefs to the violence and tries to draw meaning from it, broader meaning. And yet, the minute that it turned out that the perpetrator wasn’t Muslim, but instead was this right-wing figure, the exact opposite view arose, which is, ‘Oh, his views and associations aren’t relevant. It’s not fair to attribute or to blame people who share his views or who inspired him with these acts.’ And it got depicted as being this sort of individual crazy person with no broader political meaning, and media interest disappeared. It’s exactly the opposite of how it’s treated when violence is undertaken by someone who’s Muslim.”
Burns argues exactly that we shouldn’t attribute blame to people who inspired these acts, and I agree — Breivik is fully to blame for all the suffering he caused, and just as psychological trauma could never justify what he did, neither can his ideology. Burns argues that “while some may believe the views of Glenn Beck or the Daily Mail to be reprehensible, that does not justify the imputation onto these people of even more reprehensible views that they do not hold.” This is also entirely true.
So lets have a look at what Glenn Beck had to say on the incident, to ascertain what views he does hold. “There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth. I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing.” One piece of advice I have for Beck is that if you’re a controversial right-wing figure, noted for your emotional speaking style and holding mass rallies, it’s probably not the best idea to bring Hitler into the conversation yourself. Also, be sure that a political movement close to your own heart doesn’t already hold such political camps. But more to the point, Beck hasn’t exactly framed the issue in a way that is sympathetic to the victims of the atrocity, and is guilty of the most abhorrent and unjustifiable suggestiveness. Question: “Who does a camp about politics?” Answer: The Nazis. Oh, but the victims were actually attending a political camp? “Disturbing”. As the Boston Herald has observed, “actually, it’s the shooting that’s disturbing”
This is why I personally am quite happy for the parts of the British press, such as the Guardian and the Telegraph, to counter this trend and to pursue links to the EDL and evidence of a right-wing ideology of Anders Behring Breivik, rather than to dismiss this as the one off act of a madman. Too much of the media would happily downplay the role of ideology as it is too similar to their own. Burns writes that inferences “that the massacre represents something like the “logical conclusion” of the kind of agenda that might be pushed by such figures and outlets as Glenn Beck, the Daily Mail, Geert Wilders, or whoever” should be avoided, and I completely agree. However, while these actions are not the logical conclusion of the Daily Mail’s ideology, the very nature of ideology is that it leads to different logical conclusions for different people at different times. Marx’s ideology concluded that the state would wither away; Stalin’s interpretation led to the most overbearing state conceivable. True, Mao thought the Soviet Union was ideologically impure, but his efforts to restore Marxist purity to China led to the deaths of 45 million in the Great Famine and atrocities in the Cultural Revolution. The point is, the role of ideology can’t be downplayed just because its effects are unintended or its principles have been distorted by “crazy” individuals.
For my final example, I return to Mr Beck. On that same radio show he in fact says that Anders Behring Breivik’s acts are “not anything that anyone should engage in”, ostensibly distancing his ideology from that of the shooter, and even calling him a terrorist. But prior to this, he recalls a prophecy that he foretold last Autumn. It was made when he had the aforementioned Mr Wilders was on his show. “What is going on is exactly what I said would happen” he said, before relating Wilder’s argument that Muslims are taking over and “multiculturalism is killing Europe”, which would inevitably lead to a violent response from the right-wing. At the time, perhaps he didn’t make it clear that such acts are not anything anyone should engage in. After the event, it’s easy to make such condemnations. But the fact is that the events in Norway have been claimed as the logical conclusion of right-wing ideology by some elements of the extreme right-wing itself. So the idea that Breivik took it upon himself to fulfil this prophecy is unfortunately not as far-fetched as Burns would like, and it’s an idea which merits responsible exploration by the press.
