October 25, 2002
Spinning a Killer
The sniper has been caught, which means that the breathless, at times witless media coverage of his activities will now morph into breathless, increasingly witless coverage of Why He Did It and What Happens Next (you can be darn sure it won't include taking him behind the courthouse for the summary bullet in the head he deserves). We are going to learn everything there is to know about John Muhammad and his sidekick whether or not we consume the news media, because such high concentrations of chatter tend to spread by osmosis even absent direct contact.
At least we will be spared further press conferences by the barely articulate Montgomery County Police Chief. There's something endearing about a man who enunciates the "if" in "wif" as boldly as the speaker of English says "with." But eventually this takes its toll on the ear, much like beach music, or Barbara Walters, or anything Al Gore has to say.
It is entertaining to watch the subtle attempts at framing. Last night I saw a Maryland County official indirectly refer to Muhammad as a terrorist. This morning an NPR reporter called him "angry." The most irritating frame is the military angle. The Washington Post was working this one in its email updates, labeling the sniper a "former soldier," as opposed to a "current Muslim." I saw a television news reporter do the same last night, going further to describe how Muhammad's military bearing was on display in his arraignment.
I think there are two reasons for this emphasis on his military background (which may or may not endure), both operating at differing levels of consciousness among reporters. The first is an assumption that someone who can hit a stationary life-sized target firing a rifle from a prone position 100 yards out must have specialized training. Perhaps this is because so few journalists know anything about shooting, or anyone who shoots. It is certainly a sexier angle, this notion that the sniper is a highly trained marksman turned loose among the civilian population. But someone should tell them that my two year-old can probably make the same shot, especially if you promise him a Twix bar.
The second reason for this emphasis on Muhammad's military background is a reflex that if articulated would go something like this: "You conservatives have made a big deal for the last year about the lack of patriotism among journalists, and among the intelligentsia. Now we see that someone from one of your most beloved institutions is a serial killing terrorist. How now, Brown cow?"
Right now it appears to be a toss-up as to which frame will endure: the U.S. soldier angle, or the aggrieved violent spouse angle. Perhaps both -- he learned violence as a trade, took it out on his wives, and eventually voiced his anger on the streets of Washington, or some such nonsense. What's instructive about news stories like this is that there are always angles; we are all engaged in perpetual spin. I remember last week getting an email compendium of news synopses: one detailed a press release by gun rights people saying that the sniper slaying reveals the need for less gun control, another was about gun control people who say that the slayings reveal a need for greater gun control. Domestic violence activists will soon get in on the game, as it appears that Mohammad terrorized his ex-wives (I can hear the soundbyte now: "While Americans were terrorized on September 11th, millions of women are terrorized every day . . ."). Anti-military types will point to this as an example of military contempt for civilians. Democrats with nostalgia for "It's the Economy, Stupid" will note that Muhammad's frustration grew out of perpetual joblessness (soundbyte: "Unless we want many more John Muhammads running the streets, we need higher funding for education, jobs training, . . .").
Spin, spin, spin -- we are all in one big wash cycle, and so very few of the chatterers want to get to the heart of anything. It would be nice if we could hold everyone in the news media to Joe Friday's stricture, "Just the facts, ma'am." But I'm not sure if many of them would understand what that means. All of these things, after all, are facts: Muhammad's military background, his failed marriages, his allegiance to a venomous outgrowth of a religion of murderers and terrorists. The question is, which gets prominence?
More importantly, for the families of the victims, how much of this really matters? As we forget about them, and focus on the wondrous complexities of John Muhammad during his fifteen minutes of fame bought with other people's blood, will we turn up anything that brings anyone back to life?
No. So when the spotlight turns to some other twisted freak, be he another murderer, or a politician, or worse, a movie star, I hope we remember to tidy up all this business with three minutes in a gas chamber, followed by a box coffin and a cold grave which nobody will visit. That is how John Muhammad should ultimately be remembered -- not at all.
Posted by Woodlief on October 25, 2002 at 07:40 AM
Tony,I know you have desired a rapid ending of the terror that was caused by this mans actions, and being a christian, I know that you have offered prayers for those who have been directly affected as well as for the protection of those who might be harmed. Will you now pray for this mans soul,that his heart might be moved towards redemption? Or will you simply forget him as you say he deserves?
Tony, I don't think Charles Moose is associated with the Maryland State Police. He is the Chief of Police of Montgomery County, Maryland. That's the way I took it but I could be wrong ;)
Rob,
It is entirely possible to honestly and earnestly pray for his soul, ask the Lord to change his heart, and still understand that he needs to be executed and forgotten. If he repents and receives forgiveness, then, in the words of Paul, "Death is gain."
Forgiveness of sin does not necessarily mean one does not pay the penalty for one's actions. Drinking and driving and causing a wreck that kills someone else is a terrible thing, and you may well seek forgiveness, but being forgiven doese not heal your own injuries or get you out of going to jail - if it did, we would have a great many people suddenly finding religion.... at least long enough to "get out of jail free."
There is an argument against the death penalty here (that it cuts short the life of someone still in need of forgiveness, thereby ensuring that they go to hell), but even leaving the death penalty off the table, he does need to be forgotten by the public as soon as possible - no fame for the wicked, etc.
Rob,
Fair point. I'll pray that Muhammad's eyes are opened.
Shaun,
You are absolutely right about Moose's position. Ordinarily I leave my mistakes in the text, but this one I'll be sure to change.
It's good to know I'm not the only one taken back by Mr. Moose's lack of communication skills.
His teary eyed banter is just another example, to me, of the powerful grip the media has on some citizens. Why is it that whenever a representative of the police force appears on TV he is either choking back sobs or making speeches on morality, death, and divine justice? Aren't these people supposed to be tough and just stick to the point?
Toughness is unfashionable, and the media people don't like it when it's displayed. They have fully convinced themselves (and are not getting much feedback otherwise) that the American people prefer emotion to reason. If you don't cry for the camera, you risk getting portrayed as "cold," "robotic," "mean," and so forth. If you are someone whose job means you will have to appear at press conferences, you had better cultivate a talent for tearing up on cue if you want to keep your job.
Think about it; you know it's true.
Andrea, that's exactly what I meant by "the powerful grip the media has on some citizens." Calling the truck driver who gave the tip a hero is another example.
Very, very little actual content in the media these days. I admit to knowing little about guns and was therefore under the impression that this was an expert marksman of some sort, an opinion I realized was uninformed only after having read this latest entry. The only reference to the level of skill required for this in the media was that the sniper was someone "with a law enforcement background".
Living in the uber-liberal town of Ann Arbor, I am already seeing the things Tony mentions. I had a guy tell me that the molitary as an institution needs to be scrapped, because all the military does is take i nnocent, oppressed people, uses them up, trains them to be killers, and throws them back into society. Another woman chimed in saying that the military needs to be examined by Congress, because all military men are trained to be aggressive and anti-women!!!! And she claimed that an "silent holocaust" is happening in military bases where supposedely, women are being beaten and oppressed in many ways by their spouses. I guess these are the myths that are being propagated by various lef leaning pressure groups. Though, the evidence backing up these claimes are non-existant, I g uess, with the willing collaboration of the left leaning media, we will be deluged with such myths masquerading as reality.
Although I do appreciate those that pronounce the English language properly and without falling into colloquial-speak, I more appreciate that Chief Moose was human. You got to like a guy who goes after the press like he did. And he didn't just rabbit punch them. He had his knees on their shoulders just pummeling them.
I will grant you there are plenty of inarticulate officers in law enforcement - I've met some of them personally on the backroads of Georgia... :)
