Breaking News

Don’t fall for the simplistic depictions of the New Orleans Raiders | Editorial office


In the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, the new year began with a terrible tragedy after a man rammed his truck into a crowd of revelers in the early hours of January 1, killing at least 15 people and wounded dozens of others.

The attacker was soon officially identified as Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a 42-year-old American citizen from the neighboring state of Texas. As the story developed, news outlets focused on two key details mentioned in the FBI’s preliminary statement about the incident: an ISIL (ISIS) flag was found in Jabbar’s vehicle, and his social media accounts contained posts suggesting that he may have been “inspired” by the group. For many, this was enough to declare Jabbar, who was killed on the spot by police firearms, a terrorist “linked” to ISIL.

Although the FBI says it is investigating the attack as an “act of terrorism,” at the time of this writing there is no evidence to suggest Jabbara was ordered by ISIL to attack American soil. The FBI did not specify what evidence it used to make that legal decision, nor did it release detailed information about a possible motive.

What we do know is that Jabbar was a US Army veteran who served in the US Army for 13 years, including a deployment to Afghanistan. He was reportedly going through a divorce and expressed a desire to kill his entire family. All of this greatly complicates the narrative and challenges assumptions about what drove him to kill so many people.

Disputing official statements

The assertion by FBI officials and even US President Joe Biden that the attacker was “inspired” by ISIL raises important questions about journalistic responsibility. How do we, as journalists, extrapolate our reporting from official statements in relation to the wider context of facts?

Context is key. Our reporting of what government officials say should be immediately followed by other facts we know about the attacker’s background, statements and personal life. This is especially true when covering developing stories like this one, where authorities release conflicting information in the heat of the moment, only to quietly retract it later.

Jabbar was not an impressionable young man, but a middle-aged military veteran with significant life experience and a lot of baggage. For all we know, he may have been “radicalized” by what he experienced during his time in the US military. What about the trauma of his divorce and the anger he allegedly harbored at his own family?

The point is that we simply don’t know enough yet. What we do know is that we should be asking more questions.

For now, the Western media seems to be taking the easy way out and following a well-tested formula when covering this tragic story: “Bad Brown Muslim committed terrorism on behalf of ISIL.” This story conveniently ignores the complexity of Jabbar’s circumstances and sidesteps deeper questions about his mental state, his time in Afghanistan, and the personal crises he faced.

Contrast that with how stories involving white shooters are often treated. Reporters try hard to humanize the perpetrators and shed light on their mental problems, isolated lives and personal struggles.

Such double standards not only prevent the public from learning the full truth in a timely manner about an incident that affects their lives, but also reinforce harmful stereotypes and further alienate marginalized communities. The Muslim communities in New Orleans and the gunman’s hometown of Houston, many of whom likely never knew Jabbar, for example, may now face collective guilt for his actions due to the irresponsible actions of media organizations.

Title life cycle

As journalists, we know that the process of reporting on developing stories is a journey. First, we break down the story with the few facts we know, often relying on official lines because that’s all we have at the time. This is an understandable and necessary first step. But as more information comes to light, it is our responsibility to avoid oversimplifying what is often a complex and multi-layered story.

There have been other cases where attacks have been attributed to ISIL, but later revealed to be the work of just one person. In 2016, initial reports about Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen highlighted his declared allegiance to ISIL, but further investigation revealed a deeply disturbed individual with there are no operational links with the group.

This is important because of the ramifications such stories have on real lives. When media coverage focuses on tenuous ties to ISIL, it fuels anti-Muslim sentiment and politics. After The 2015 San Bernardino shootingdisinformation linking the attackers to the wider ISIL network contributed to public support for then-candidate Donald Trump’s proposed “Muslim ban”. After 9/11, vague and unsubstantiated claims about Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda were key to justifying the invasion of Iraqleading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the political instability that spawned ISIL.

We also owe it to the families of the victims to reveal and report the whole truth about what happened that day. They deserve to know the true motives of the attackers and whether anything could have been done to prevent the tragedy.

None of this means we should ignore potential evidence of something bigger at play. But discernment is key. As we continue to report on this tragedy, let’s focus on the facts and context necessary to paint the most accurate and responsible picture.



Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button