With Suspected Austin Bomber Dead, a Familiar Story About Who Is and Isn't Called a "Terrorist"
Published on
by
"When 'other' people who kill innocent civilians with bombs and blow themselves up, media, politicians, and Twitter have no problem immediately talking 'terror.'"
By
Emergency workers responded to an area of Round Rock, Tex., where the police say a bombing suspect blew himself up in his vehicle. (Photo: Eric Gay/AP)
The man believed to have been behind a string of bombings that killed two people and injured five in Austin, Texas died early Wednesday morning after blowing himself up in his vehicle as law enforcement closed in.
"U.S. media and politicians have been very, very quick to apply the terrorism label when suspects are not white, because such an application carries no social or professional blow-back if they are wrong."
—Christian Christensen, Stockholm University
—Christian Christensen, Stockholm University
The suspect has been identified as Mark Anthony Conditt, a 24-year-old white male—reigniting a familar conversation on who is and isn't labeled a "terrorist" by the mainstream media and American politicians.
The explosions began on March 2, when a package bomb killed 39-year-old Anthony Stephan House on his front porch in Austin. Over the next two weeks, five other bombs were detonated—all of which were constructed by the same individual, law enforcement officials said during a news conference on Wednesday.
"What we do know is we believe the same person built each one of these devices," said Fred Milanowski, an agent with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "We are not 100 percent convinced there's not other devices out there. We still want the public to be vigilant."
Before the bombing suspect's death, the White House released a statement claiming"there is no apparent nexus to terrorism at this time."
Now that the suspect has been identified as a white male, commentators predicted that lawmakers, the major media, and law enforcement will likely follow the White House line that the suspect is not a terrorist—a line some argued would be radically different from the beginning if the suspect wasn't white.
In a Twitter thread Wednesday morning, Christian Christensen, a journalism professor at Stockholm University, observed that "U.S. media and politicians have been very, very quick to apply the terrorism label when suspects are not white, because such an application carries no social or professional blow-back if they are wrong."
When "other" people who kill innocent civilians with bombs and blow themselves up instead of being captured by the police, media, politicians and Twitter have no problem immediately talking "radicalization" & "terror."
When it's this guy? "Wait for the facts."#AustinBombings
This isn't "whataboutism" or justifying/rationalizing terrorism. This is about the entirely logical and professional demand that politicians and media are fair and consistent in HOW they discuss crimes like terrorism. Because words matter. #AustinBombings
Of course, politicians and the media SHOULD "wait to get the facts" before they apply a label like "terrorist" to an individual, or draw conclusions about motive. But that principle needs to be used in ALL cases. It isn't. #AustinBombings
US media and politicians have been very, very quick to apply the terrorism label when suspects are not white, because such an application carries no social or professional blow-back if they are wrong. Like the "Bowling Green Massacre" lie. #AustinBombings
That it's OK to call "Others" terrorists without proof is linked to the idea that, even you are wildly speculating simply on the basis of religion or skin color, it's OK because "they" were more "likely" to be terrorists, anyway, so the slander is acceptable. #AustinBombings
Using that same logic, to NOT label someone a "terrorist" simply on the basis of their religion or skin color is also OK...but only so long as that non-labeling fits into a "commonsense" (dominant, in-group) understanding of society. #AustinBombings
How powerful are "commonsense" understandings? When Conway invented the "Bowling Green Massacre" and Trump "Last Night in Sweden", people were willing to ascribe guilt for events that didn't even happen. When told they were fake, people just shrugged. As I wrote: #AustinBombings
Yes, words matter. Professional and ethical consistency in how the Collective We discuss things like terrorism demands addressing and combating a structural discrimination that allows for "fluid" professional and ethical standards. Wait for the facts? Yep. Always. #AustinBombings
The ultimate irony is that attacks against people who argue against labeling non-white suspects before the facts are in often come from those who roundly and savagely criticize a "fake news" that is supposedly rooted in speculation and not "facts." #AustinBombings
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
posted by Satish Sharma at
20:11
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home