However, if it did turn out that one of the main reasons behind his shooting spree was based on his religion, it would be crucial to mention it because it plays a significant role. I think it’s OK to publish information like this when it actually adds something the story or is somehow useful; then it should be mentioned. While it’s important to avoid any kind of discrimination, it would be a mistake to leave out a piece of information that alters the story.

However, when it plays no significant role in the story, I think it only encourages prejudice among people, and can be offensive to many readers, especially those part of the group being named. The negative stereotype attached to Muslims comes from Muslim extremists, and should not be mistakenly attached to any or all Muslims. By noting the fact that this shooter happened to be a Muslim, some might feel it’s almost misrepresenting the religion. So unless it somehow alters the story, it’s not necessary, and is often trickier than it is worth.

I also think something to be careful of is making sure that the facts being given are straight. This can be a sensitive area to report on already, so facts should be double-checked. It shouldn’t be assumed that someone is of a particular ethnic background, because someone could easily be of a different descent than their name or skin implies. Fudging something like this could be a disaster.

Dr. Daniel Garrett from the University Health Center said that same thing about the H1N1 virus. The media caused a lot of extra panic because information was so unclear in the beginning, he said.
That certainly was the case with the Fort Hood shooting. The first reports I heard were that a Muslim soldier had opened fire at the base and that three other soldiers were questioned in connection with the shootings but had since been released. I never heard the report that it was three Islamic gunmen in stolen military uniforms like Alan Mutter’s article said was the media’s initial storyline.

I don’t recall exactly if I heard the gunmen was dead or if I just assumed that, but I remember being surprised to learn he was, in fact, alive.

I think news organizations have to be very careful and very critical in the early hours of breaking news. They have to question their own systems and decide if they are going to sacrifice accuracy for being the first to report the information. They also need to be careful and do some checking of their own with what officials tell them because they don’t know any more than the media does early on in unexpected situations.
I doubt the media would have put as much emphasis on religion if the gunmen had been Catholic or Protestant, but those religions don’t have recent history of being at war with the United States either. So of course the media is going to play it up big that he is a Muslim.

Taking that angle does not help denounce any stereotypes, however, and the media should have carefully considered the backlash that many Muslims might face in light of their reports. I thought it was good the Dallas Morning News did a story right away Thursday night on local Muslims to make it known they did not support what the Nidal Malik Hasan had done.

Reporters jumped on the same bandwagon after the Oklahoma City bombing and assumed too quickly Middle Eastern terrorists were to blame. I think since the U.S. has the mentality that everyone is out to get us, we rule out our fellow Americans as the culprits of any major violent out lashes.

Unless you have good reason to report religion or race or ethnicity in firm connection with a crime and it’s not just speculation, I don’t think it should be reported. Not only does it make the falsely accused look bad, it makes the news organization look bad as well.

If a Catholic walked into an abortion clinic and started blowing the place to pieces, his or her religion would be pertinent to the story. If the same person used violence in a way that was not related to his or her religion, it would not be appropriate to publish a specific religion.

Without knowing the motives of a suspect, I don’t think it is proper to connect them with a group. When there is a relationship between a group and an action, then of course that is something that can be published. But until that motive is clearly determined, news sources should be extremely cautious about what they publish.

Before editors allow a religion to be published in connection with a suspect, I think they should ask if it is necessary to the story. I think they should also try to put their own religion into the same story and see if it would make sense. If it doesn’t, it probably doesn’t need to be published.

I was under the impression that the Associated Press says to only use religion when it is necessary to the story, similarly to race. However, under the “religion” section, they did not provide any guidelines for when and when not to use religious affiliation.

If anything makes people care enough about “poor” Detroit to fix it, this photo should do the trick.

After reading the article and column, I realized why the Detroit News ran this photo. The photo depicted the severity of homelessness in Detroit. The photo encourages people and government to become proactive about the issue. The “decay of the city” needed to be addressed and this photo started the discussion. The image is not too gory or graphic which makes it even more justifiable.

If Lincoln were having the same issues as Detroit, I would run a similar story about the homeless, but I probably wouldn’t run the Detroit story/picture in the Journal Star because of proximity.

The columnist did a good job of bringing together the issue and shedding light on the bigger picture for Detroit. He made me feel more at ease about running the photo. He brought up unemployment issues, which often lead to homelessness. And with the state of the economy, this could be anyone’s situation.

The columnist brought up a lot of interesting points, like whether or not the police dragged their feet in attending to the frozen body. Keeping the city safe and free from dead corpses is a matter of public concern, so this point was very salient. He also noted some background about the lot where the body was found and how the billionaire who owns the land has a history of letting prime real estate go to waste, which leads to squatting by the homeless. Knowing this is also a matter of public concern and maybe the billionaire owner should be held accountable.

I really like the columnist views on the picture and how she tied that to the bigger picture of what’s going on in American society right now. I agree with her when she said running that picture was a public service, and the newspaper should get some kind of an award for it. She also states that this is “reality, people; time to wake up and smell your society rotting. We’ve been living, most of us, in a world that has allowed us to mostly insulate ourselves from reality.”

If this happened in Lincoln, and Lincoln was going through the same economic downturn has Detroit, than I would definitely have to run this photo on the cover of the Lincoln Journal Star. It seems like a disservice not to.