In what ways are the tragedies of Newton (primary school massacre) and Watertown (Boston terrorist bombing) the same and/or different from one another and, given the similarities, why are they reported differently and why do they have such a different impact on the political process?
All interesting questions. From the article.
One crime was committed by a person motivated by no cause or political interest and driven only by personal demons. Another crime was committed by two people whose actions were clearly driven by their religious and political beliefs. Under these circumstances, which of these terrible tragedies do you think would be considered an incident that could only be properly understood as something that ought to spur the nation to specific political actions?I would argue that both events are legitimate catalysts to reflection on existing policies as well as an opportunity to reconsider root causes.
If you answered the latter, you clearly know nothing about our political culture.
The former is, of course, the Newtown massacre in which a crazed, lone gunman murdered 20 1st-graders and six teachers at a Connecticut elementary school. The latter is the Boston Marathon bombing that took the lives of three spectators and wounded nearly 200, to which the toll of one police officer murdered and another wounded during the manhunt for the terrorists must be added. Though the first was a random act of personal madness and the second was just the latest in a long string of terrorist acts motivated by Islamist hatred for the West and America, there has never been any doubt about which of the two our chattering classes would consider as having undeniable political consequences and which would be treated as an unknowable crime about which intelligent persons ought not to think too deeply.
Bearing in mind the old legal adage that bad cases make bad law and the paraphrase, exceptional events make bad policy, what might be made of comparing Newton and Watertown?
In Newton, the perpetrator is known. The reasons for his actions are known to the extent that they are knowable. He had a history of mental illness. The means by which his actions were committed are also known. He stole the weapons from his mother. For whatever reason, the analysis of Newton quickly devolved in to two simplistic root causes, both of which are correct as far as they go. 1) The tragedy occurred because of mental illness. 2) The tragedy was facilitated by relatively easy (though illegal) access to weapons. These root causes are treated as exclusive of one another when in fact they are entirely compatible.
I view the former issue (mental health) as the greater of the two issues in part because I believe mental health and substance dependency are tightly related and have far reaching consequences. "Solve" mental health and substance dependency and numerous social pathologies plunge such as homelessness, burglary rates, murder rates, number of massacres, suicide rates, domestic violence, prison overcrowding, morbidity issues, healthcare costs, education attainment, disparate group impacts, etc. "Solve" gun access and at most you might reduce the murder and suicide rate. Maybe.
But the interesting consequence of Newton was a proposed legislative package which all parties, both proponents and opponents, acknowledged would have had no preventive impact on Newton and which would have little or no impact on future crime rates. In essence, a classic Non Sequitur. The Newton tragedy was hijacked to achieve an unrelated political goal. This was in itself a tragedy because we omitted having the discussions that might have been beneficial to all communities - what can be done to improve access to and the effectiveness of good mental health care and what can be done to help people with substance addictions? Those might have had some prophylactic impact on future tragedies but we never got to that conversation.
In Watertown, the perpetrators are known. The reasons for their actions are suspected (with some evidentiary basis) but are not completely understood. The perpetrators chose to adhere to a violent, exclusionary and destructive dogma. The means by which the tragedy was committed are also known. They used commonly available knowledge and materials to create bombs to kill and maim. For whatever reason, the analysis of Watertown is quickly devolving in to two simplistic root causes, both of which are correct as far as they go. 1) The route to radicalization was quick, complex and unpredictable. 2) The tragedy was facilitated by religious fervor and perhaps law enforcement incompetence. These root causes are treated as exclusive of one another when in fact they are entirely compatible.
It is hard to see where Watertown will go in terms of policy implications but it appears that it will go nowhere.
Instead of examining both these tragedies as political events, could we achieve more by looking at it as a catalyst for understanding rather than simply as a knee-jerk response of how do I use this to advance a pre-existing political agenda. I think we could.
What Tobin does is call attention to unstated assumptions and unseen perspectives.
In both Newton and Watertown it would be immensely easy, if Americans were as crude as the newspapers make them out to be, to simply blame the mentally ill and Muslims for the respective tragedies.
The newspapers barely mentioned discrimination against the mentally ill in the context of Newton. There were a few advocates of the mentally ill that expressed concern but the whole issue was marginal to the broader discussion. By and large the newspapers appeared indifferent to any concern that Newton would lead to increasing discrimination and violence against the mentally ill.
On the other hand, post-Watertown, the concern that all Muslims should not be tarred with the same brush is a leitmotif in most the major papers. Of course, they should not be, but on what basis is that concern on the part of newspapers (increased prejudice against Muslims) greater than the concern for discrimination against the mentally ill? The FBI hate crimes figures indicate that hate crimes against Muslims are up by a factor of 4-6X or so from the late 1990s (with a one year spike after 9/11). But despite such later Muslim-related terrorist incidents as the Fort Hood massacre or the DC sniper, anti-Muslim hate crimes have remained pretty steady between 125-175 crimes per year for a dozen years.
Of course the desired number is zero hate crimes but out of a total population of some 310 million, those are pretty low numbers. Context and perspective are also critical. Anti-Jewish hate crimes continue to run 4-5X as high as anti-Muslim hate crimes without an apparent media concern that there is a rising tide of anti-Semitism.
The theoretical concern about a potential anti-Muslim backlash is of course valid. But what if all the evidence indicates that in fact Americans are extraordinarily tolerant and that there is no evident causative relationship in recent years between terrorist acts committed by Muslims and the number of individual hate crimes committed against Muslims? Where does that lead us with regard to the Mainstream Media's obsession that there might be such a backlash? Either, the MSM are ignorant of the data, in which case, shame on them, or they are inveterate bigots with a disparaging and unfounded view of their fellow Americans.
This latter interpretation would be supported by the reported 2006 incident in which NBC solicited Muslims to walk around a NASCAR event in the hopes that it would elicit some evidence of anti-Muslim behavior (reported at MNBC), a hope that apparently was dashed. It is little wonder that the public so little trusts the traditional media when the media's prejudice against the public is so vividly on display.
It seems to me that:
1) By failing to look at Newton and Watertown disinterestedly and with negative capability, the media has helped forestall meaningful discussion about real root causes and possible policy changes that might make a real beneficial difference in the lives of Americans.
2) The MSM would be well counseled to read the Sermon of the Mount: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" The prejudices and biases of the media help perpetuate unsupported prejudices (Americans are biased against Muslims) and at the same time shutoff discussion about real issues that need addressing (mental healthcare).
3) There is an unacknowledged assumption on the part of the members of the press that every tragedy can be "solved."
4) There is a deep reluctance to engage with facts, data, and hard trade-offs. It is nice to say that we ought to be better at discerning the mentally ill who pose a danger to themselves or others or to say that the intelligence services ought to be better at discerning when on the continuum dogmatic complaining ends and terroristic impulses begin. It would be nice if we could do those things but likely unrealistic. Fundamental laws of liberty and practicalities of expense and the variability of human nature all intrude and constitute a fortress-like wall.
5) Humble inquiry will move us forwards towards better answers, usually incrementally but the nature of the MSM beast precludes such approaches. A steady one percent improvement a year in anything is fantastic news that goes unreported whereas a once-off variant outcome gets all the attention.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment