Sikh Temple Shooting, Who Cares?

[crashhelmet]

From Huffington Post
Sikh Temple Shooting: Why Do the Media Care Less About This Attack?

I've been thinking this same thing since I read about it on Sunday. Where's the media attention? How come we're not hearing about this guy around the clock like we still are about the Aurora shooter?

Why hasn't the "OMG GUNS R EBIL!!!!!" crowd raised their voices yet again about how there needs to be better control?

Surprisingly, Pat Robertson only blamed Atheists this time, instead of blaming the LGBT community like he normally does.

Like this writer says, you'd think that with it being labeled as "Domestic Terrorism," there would surely be some kind of hoopla about it. But nope. nothing.

I think he truth of the matter is that the media, however liberal people may want to accuse them of being, doesn't want to flood the press with the story of a hate crime, and the victims weren't dark enough to get the normal activists to pick up their torches.

If this had been a Christian church or the victims were white and/or black, would it be this quiet?

[Rapscallion]

Well, the 'guns are evil' crowd were also massively noticeable by our absence in the wake of the Aurora Batman shootings, until the 'guns killed so many people, we should introduce more!' (see what I did there?) crew started mouthing off.

I think I mentioned that at least once in the Batman thread.

I can't speal for christians - I'm not one.

Rapscallion

[TheHuckster]

Few things to take note:

1.) It did make big headlines, and coverage of it remains in focus, albeit not as much as the Aurora shooting. Google News still has it as the top news story, which indicates, since it's gathered by automated bots scouring news sources, it's still considered big news today.

2.) While this doesn't make the event any less important, I think the general public consider a shooting in a cinema on the general public more "relevant" than a shooting that targeted a minority religious group. Both were committed by nutjobs, both were senseless, but I think a lot of the difference in coverage is because the average joe is more reactive to a shooting that occurs in a place where they frequent, such as a cinema, rather than a place where they very likely will never set foot in in their lives. I'm not saying this is justification, but rather an explanation.

3.) More events are happening during the same time period. The new Curiosity rover and the Olympics are two other events that are competing for coverage.

4.) Half as many people died in the attack, and many less were wounded. While every death is just as important as the other, I firmly believe if as many people were wounded and killed as the Aurora attack, it would get more publicity.

5.) The shooter in the Wisconsin attack was killed on scene. There's no bail hearing, no stories about the assailant's behavior in custody, or discussions about his upcoming trial. Part of the coverage of the Aurora attack was on the aftermath, with court hearings and discussions about the attacker's "crazy hair." And until the Aurora shooter is sentenced, we will continue to get updates about everything from what his defense attorney says to how many love letters he gets while in jail.

6.) There is less "mystery" surrounding the Wisconsin attack. The attacker was a Neo-Nazi and had firm political/social reasons for his attack, as ill conceived, crazy, evil, and stupid as it was. If you ask someone why the guy shot up a Sikh temple, they'll answer, "Well, he was a skinhead redneck." If you ask someone why some dropout killed a bunch of moviegoers, they'll answer, "Pfft, I have no clue, he's a fucking nutjob." Much of the discussion in the media was about the why in the Aurora shooting.

7.) People have already exhausted their debate over gun control, violence in movies, etc. in response to the Aurora shootings. Redoing all of those "debates" in the media is tiring and I think they feel the public really is sick of the endless wheel-spinning discussion over what we should do to fix the problem.

Bear in mind, I am not listing these as justifications but rather simple explanations for why the media isn't giving this as much coverage as the Aurora shooting. Still, I don't feel as though they are really completely ignoring the event, as there are still headlines on the home page about it today.

[crashhelmet]

I can agree with some of your points, especially with the Curiosity landing

There are a lot of people that go to a religious service of some sort in this country. It could be safe to say that more people go to these services in one day than have gone to see The Dark Knight Rises or any other major successful movie in its entire run. So I don't buy the argument that the Aurora shootings could happen to anyone, but not this.

If it was a Christian Church, the conservatives and evangelicals would be screaming even louder about their oppression and the "War on Religion." If it was a church with an African-American congregation, the activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be rallying their troops to march and screaming their cries for justice.

But they're not, because the victims weren't "them." It's a growing trend. People care less about the injustices around them because they can't or won't count themselves among the victims.

It's the american way, "I got mine, fuck you"

Well said

[TheHuckster]

I can agree with some of your points, especially with the Curiosity landing

There are a lot of people that go to a religious service of some sort in this country. It could be safe to say that more people go to these services in one day than have gone to see The Dark Knight Rises or any other major successful movie in its entire run. So I don't buy the argument that the Aurora shootings could happen to anyone, but not this.

If it was a Christian Church, the conservatives and evangelicals would be screaming even louder about their oppression and the "War on Religion." If it was a church with an African-American congregation, the activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be rallying their troops to march and screaming their cries for justice.

But they're not, because the victims weren't "them." It's a growing trend. People care less about the injustices around them because they can't or won't count themselves among the victims.

I think you rebuked your own argument in the first paragraph in the second and third. If it was a Christian Church (but it wasn't) it would have been vehemently and more vocally condemned. If it was an African-American group of any kind, religious or not, there would be a massive outrage... but it wasn't. As far as the average Joe is concerned, the guy was dangerous, to be sure, but not specifically to them.

Obviously that's very flawed reasoning. A guy this crazy is just as apt to attack any race and/or religion, but the fact is he didn't.

I think the key here is the Aurora shooting is perceived as more "random"... this guy chose a random theater at a random time, and likely was even a random movie. Had he done this during the Avengers premier, he would have likely dressed in Captain America garb. The shooter seemed to have a vendetta against humanity and civilization as a whole.

Whereas in this case, the shooter seemed to have a vendetta against a specific group of people, and wasn't as "random" in that sense.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think that there WOULD have been more of an outrage at a black church or a Christian church, even a muslim mosque.

Those all fit into the current narrative.

Racism against black people is important. The first thing we think of when we hear of racism (at least if the listener is American) is racism against black people.

We don't think of racism against Koreans by the Japanese. We don't think of racism against the indigenous people by colonial powers. We don't think of racism against Arabs in Israel. We don't even think of racism against Latinos in America, which is a major problem here.

Christian Church attacked? Okay, you have a story. The war on religion! That's something you can talk about. People are trying to destroy Christianity! No they're not! That's a narrative we have going.

Black Church attacked! Ooh, you can talk about that too. Trayvon Martin was big news. You can keep that conversation going. Racism is still a problem! No it isn't! There's a story.

Muslims? There's another thing, another narrative common to American culture right now. Are all muslims evil? Yes! No! Controversy!

But Sikhs? Most Americans don't even know what a Sikh IS. Some people aren't even sure if it's a religion or an ethnic group. So what we get down to is...

Well, let's be honest. A tragedy. Every murder is a tragedy. Every life lost is tragic. But we don't get a STORY.

We process information through stories. Through the narrative in our head. There's no narrative about Sikhs, so we don't know how to process it. All that the culture at large can muster is... Meh.

Yeah, it sucks. But people die every day. There's no story. Nothing to discuss. And more than an attack on a black church, or a black meeting group, or anything else, you can dismiss it as "Oh, that's just a crazy white supremacist. They do that." Because Sikhs aren't BLACK people, so it's not like there's major racism against THEM, right?

[crashhelmet]

I think you rebuked your own argument in the first paragraph in the second and third. If it was a Christian Church (but it wasn't) it would have been vehemently and more vocally condemned. If it was an African-American group of any kind, religious or not, there would be a massive outrage... but it wasn't. As far as the average Joe is concerned, the guy was dangerous, to be sure, but not specifically to them.

Obviously that's very flawed reasoning. A guy this crazy is just as apt to attack any race and/or religion, but the fact is he didn't.

I think the key here is the Aurora shooting is perceived as more "random"... this guy chose a random theater at a random time, and likely was even a random movie. Had he done this during the Avengers premier, he would have likely dressed in Captain America garb. The shooter seemed to have a vendetta against humanity and civilization as a whole.

Whereas in this case, the shooter seemed to have a vendetta against a specific group of people, and wasn't as "random" in that sense.

So hate crimes are only worthy of attention when they're committed against a certain group? Or is it not worthy of attention because these other religions should expect to be attacked? It might not be exactly what you're saying, but it's what's being implied in just about every discussion I've seen on the topic.

Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw a line?

[TheHuckster]

So hate crimes are only worthy of attention when they're committed against a certain group? Or is it not worthy of attention because these other religions should expect to be attacked? It might not be exactly what you're saying, but it's what's being implied in just about every discussion I've seen on the topic.

Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw a line?

Again, I'm not justifying anything. I'm just answering the question: Why wouldn't the media give this as much coverage as the Aurora shooting?

I should point out, however, that there is a line somewhere. Otherwise, the only way every murder gets the same coverage is if newspapers' front pages are simply a list of every name that got killed in one form or another at the hands of another human being the previous day, and unless you own shares in Prozak, I don't see how that's beneficial.

[Andara Bledin]

There are only so many hours in the day to relate tragedy; and, as HD said, if it doesn't fit a current narrative, it would take too long to explain to be able to shoe-horn it into whatever else is scheduled for the news that day.

We draw a line because resources are not infinite; no matter what you do, something will be relegated to the back burner and that something will be vitally important to someone, more-so than whatever it was that was actually covered.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

Immediately after the Aurora shooting, I mentioned to a coworker that if the shooter had died, the American public would forget about the tragedy within a couple weeks. Because with the attacker dead, many of us may contemplate the tragedy, shake our heads and then move on.

Every year there are horrible tragedies such as office shootings, mall shootings, school shootings, etc. Yet I'd be hard pressed to recall the specific details or locations of these tragedies, simply because the perpetrators were dead and thus quickly forgotten in the media.

[fireheart17]

But Sikhs? Most Americans don't even know what a Sikh IS. Some people aren't even sure if it's a religion or an ethnic group. So what we get down to is...

The majority of Sikhs are Indian, although there are pockets of non-Indian folks becoming Sikh. And I do remember hearing after 9/11, a number of Sikhs WERE harassed because they resembled Muslim men, or were mistaken for Muslim men. Also, there have been a few hate crimes centred around the Sikh community, due to the fact that Sikh men and women don't cut their hair. (a few people have had "forced" haircuts)

To answer the question though, Sikhism is a religion.

[TheHuckster]

Immediately after the Aurora shooting, I mentioned to a coworker that if the shooter had died, the American public would forget about the tragedy within a couple weeks. Because with the attacker dead, many of us may contemplate the tragedy, shake our heads and then move on.

Every year there are horrible tragedies such as office shootings, mall shootings, school shootings, etc. Yet I'd be hard pressed to recall the specific details or locations of these tragedies, simply because the perpetrators were dead and thus quickly forgotten in the media.

On the flip side, I question just how beneficial it is to be able to recall every tragedy that's ever happened in your lifetime. Contemplating a tragedy, shaking our heads, and moving on, to me, isn't a bad thing. If we couldn't move on from bad events that happen, both in our lives personally and to society at a more distant level, we'd be pretty depressed people for sure. News exists to report current events. It "forgets" a tragic event because after a while it's no longer current. The Aurora shooting is going to continue being a current event for as long as its shooter is on trial, and after he is given his sentence, we'll see that event, too, becoming "forgotten" by the media as it no longer becomes current.

[crashhelmet]

It's just something that irks me about it all. In this case, it isn't just the lack of media attention that bugs me. It's the lack of support from those around the country that are always ready to cry discrimination when their group is victimized, regardless if it was discriminatory or not. People are always demanding equality but then it's "Fuck you, I got mine" when it happens to someone else.

[TheHuckster]

It's just something that irks me about it all. In this case, it isn't just the lack of media attention that bugs me. It's the lack of support from those around the country that are always ready to cry discrimination when their group is victimized, regardless if it was discriminatory or not. People are always demanding equality but then it's "Fuck you, I got mine" when it happens to someone else.

Again, I question just how lacking the media attention really is. Are these observations you've experienced yourself or are you just reading what other people are claiming? These are all articles I was easily able to find and link to from each media outlet today alone. When the news hit on Sunday it was even more prominent. The event might not be as prominent as the Aurora shooting, but to say the media is lacking attention on it is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

CBS News:
The Sikh Temple Shooting Victims
Sikh Leader, Cops Hailed as Wis Rampage Heroes
FBI looks for motive in Sikh temple shooting

ABC News:
Cracking Wisconsin Gunman's Secret Racist Tattoo Code
Neighbors: Temple Shooter's Ex Said He Had 'Dropped Off the Face of the Earth'
Gunman Exhorted Other White Supremacists to Act

FOX News:
Did mental illness fuel Wisconsin massacre -- or was it terrorism?
Sikh temple shooter's soundtrack of hate
VIDEO: Suspected Sikh temple shooter described as 'neo-Nazi'

NBC News:
Alleged gunman in Wisconsin Sikh temple attack ID'd as Army veteran; FBI explores links to white supremacist groups
Sikhs reel after 'senseless' attack: We're not Taliban
Experts: Alleged temple gunman Wade Michael Page led neo-Nazi band, had deep extremist ties

New York Times:
Wisconsin Killer Fed and Was Fueled by Hate-Driven Music
Other Stories...

You are right about the anti-discrimination groups' lack of response to this, however. What I dislike about organizations like the NAACP and others is they are indeed very much concentrated to one group, and it's ironic that they're always going to fight against their own group's discrimination without fighting for overall equality in society. It's very hypocritical.

[Hyena Dandy]

The majority of Sikhs are Indian, although there are pockets of non-Indian folks becoming Sikh. And I do remember hearing after 9/11, a number of Sikhs WERE harassed because they resembled Muslim men, or were mistaken for Muslim men. Also, there have been a few hate crimes centred around the Sikh community, due to the fact that Sikh men and women don't cut their hair. (a few people have had "forced" haircuts)

To answer the question though, Sikhism is a religion.

Well /I/ know that...