Why not call it like it is?
We're not calling apples "apples", but it wasn't always this way.
Today, while reading this story about the US Senate's report on the Fort Hood shooting, I was reminded again of an issue with which I've struggled. Here's the bit that caught my eye (emphasis mine),
According to portions of the report obtained by the Associated Press, military supervisors had the authority to discipline or discharge Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 in the shootings at the Texas military post in November 2009.
Why do we refer to this individual as "the man accused of mass murder" instead of "the man who murdered 13 people in November of 2009"?
These are facts:
- A gunman opened fire at the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center on the grounds of Fort Hood, a US Army base near Killeen, TX, at about 13:30 CST on 5 NOV 2009.
- Thirteen people were murdered by this gunman and more than 30 others were wounded.
- The gunman was shot but not killed.
- This gunman was identified as Major Nadal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who worked on the base.
News reports published in the immediate aftermath did not pull punches. For example, a story published on 5 NOV 2009 by MSNBC came right out and said what happened and who did it.
An Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others, was shot but captured alive, military officials said late Thursday.
The gunman, identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was wounded at the scene but was captured alive and was in stable condition….
What changed? Why did we not call him only "the accused" then but do so now?
It's the American Way
We protect the innocent, sometimes risking not punishing the guilty.
Is it common for the media to refer to those who have been arrested and charged with crimes as "accused" until the verdict is returned? That's possible. But in this case, should they bother? He was caught red-handed! In the act of murdering people!
I am torn because on the one hand, I do not believe that Maj. Hasan is the wrong person. He did it: he murdered those people. Furthermore, on 22 NOV 2009, the AP reported, "John Galligan, the civilian attorney for Maj. Nidal Hasan, said, … 'an insanity defense has to be considered.'” (And I just noticed that, even then, the author calls Maj. Hasan "an Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people".) Claiming a person is insane does not imply the person did not commit the crime for which he was arrested, only that he should be excused from the just consequences. I mean, there is just no way out of the truth that this Muslim murdered those people. I don't like reading all the pussyfooting around the matter.
But, on the other hand, I do believe that the right thing is to call ANY such person "the accused" until they have been judged to be guilty in a court of law. The American justice system ought to be one that favors protection of the innocent at risk of allowing some guilty to go free rather than one that catches all the guilty at the risk of wrongly imprisoning some innocents.
And so, begrudgingly, I concur that we should honor the American Way by continuing to call him "the accused" until he is found guilty in court.
But, wait! Is there more?
Is there more to the matter than meets the eye?
That was where I meant to end this post when I first set out to write it. My initial supposition was that the media is honoring the American concept of "innocent until proven guilty," but maybe I am giving the media too much credit. Should I really trust the media to do the right thing? Do they have some other motive? Are we being conditioned by the media to consider him only "the accused Fort Hood shooter" instead of calling him what he really is, "the Fort Hood murderer"? Does the fact that he is an Islamic extremist compel the media into giving this man special treatment?
What do you think? Is the media no longer blatantly calling Major Hasad "the Fort Hood shooter" out of respect for true American ideals, or is there some other reason?
