Front page: A photograph of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, cropped to just the head (as if a mug shot) with a black bar censoring his eyes. In negative lettering across this bar reads "TERRORIST?"
And I thought the stereotyping couldn't get any worse.
The article within (titled: "Terrified... Or Terrorist?") examines Hasan's history, life and apparent motives up to the fateful day where he would take the lives of 13 members of the American Armed Forces at Fort Hood.
The skepticism between whether he was deranged or a acting in a plot of terrorism is understandable, but the way in which it was delivered in a prestigious publication such as Time, is questionable.
The front page illustration aside, the inside page includes another illustration, this one of Hasan in front of a mosque, with red paint splattered over his face and the blue field of stars behind his head. The major's face is stone-cold, and the red paint reads like blood - blood on the face and hands of Hasan.
The article begins with a feature style lede that is offensive to me, a non-Muslim.
It reads verbatim:
"What a surprise it must have been when Major Nidal Malik Hassan woke up from his coma not in paradise but in Brooke Army Medical Center, deep in the heart of Texas, under security so tight that there were armed guards patrolling both the intensive-care unit and checkpoints at the nearest freeway off-ramp."
After the first read of this, I had to double-take and try again. There are so many things wrong with this introduction.
1) It invokes the imagery of Muslim martyrs believing they will be welcomed in "paradise" for doing harm to infidels. The text does not read, literally or even through inference, "heaven." It reads "paradise." It might as well pander to the "being met by 1000 virgins" stereotype as well, and include something about meeting Saddam Hussein for a glass of sherry and a romp down the golden paved streets.
2) Hasan hasn't been on trial yet, and the tone of this story sets him up immediately as the bad guy.
Sure. It's a touchy subject. It just happened. But no where does this article read "commentary" or "editorial." Entering the text, I should find objective information and fact-based sourcing, which there is plenty of. However, the author twists the story to not only demonize Hasan within the very first paragraph, but she glorifies the shooter of Hasan, Kimberly Munley.
"And who denied him his martyrdom? That would be Kimberly Munley, the SWAT-teem markswoman nicknamed Mighty Mouse, who with her partner ran toward the sound of gunshots at the Soldier Readiness Center..."
Her nickname was Mighty Mouse, huh? How about her favorite TV show and other leisure activities she enjoys when she's not saving the country oh-so-valiantly? The tone of the story couldn't be more one-sided.
I am not at all suggesting that we should glorify the shooter. In a time in America's history where school-shootings is perhaps more prevalent than ever and acts of domestic terrorism seem to be occurring more often, I understand the need to analyze the situation. And in a situation as such, I certainly understand the need to pay tribute to those who have died.
But this story is handled so sloppily, that if I were a Muslim-American, I could only respond to a story that demonizes and stereotypes my culture with utter frustration. Already deeply affected and hurt by the fact that their culture has been sullied once again in the US, how else could they respond to a piece of journalism in perhaps the most well known American magazine that essentially reads:
Hasan was a practicing Muslim with a lot of problems. Were those problems the reason why he attacked? We don't know. But he was Muslim, and owned the Koran, and probably was expecting paradise for his martyrdom.
Time should have thought twice before letting emotion sway journalistic insight. The story contains a lot of interesting fact, but it is too darkly construed by the overtones of passion and emotion in the wake of another tragic domestic shooting.
This only provides evidence for the argument that we will never be done stereotyping, and, especially in the event of a tragedy, we would rather define and analyze the event through stereotypes then consider any alternatives.
I cringed every time this horrible incident was portrayed as terrorism. Any time someone can point out the ignorance of a terrorist statement, while respecting the people who died, helps build the intelligence of the public.
ReplyDeleteI wish there were more people who could read between the lines.