Is That Legal?

Gee, Mr. Instapundit is musing out loud about why the MLM might not, hmmm, let's say, highlight something that fits one of his paradigms to justify exactly why it is we need, as our VP recently said, to keep the GOP entrenched in power.

Why is it that Mr. Instaputz doesn't ask the same question about the MLM and this horribly pathetic, over-matched administration topped by the most out-of-his league president since Warren Harding (and that's saying something . . . considering Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter).

Does anyone want to know why Rome fell?

Concentrating power in an incompetent, overmatched boob who's reflexive response to international problems is "freedom versus terror" is just too pathetic to think about.

Aaargh!!!!!

Glenn Reynold's epitaph should read: "I once had integrity."

I'm glad the press is taking such pains to minimize the risk of ignorant and violent backlash against innocent members of vilified and vulnerable minority groups.

Who knows, if the press wasn't so vigilant, Mr Haq might have been whipped into a fury by press coverage of something and killed innocent members of a vilified and vulnerable minority group himself, instead of just shooting those Jews.

In response to "moving to Canada":

Please, please move. Now.

Are you still here? Let me help you pack.

As for this post, hmmm, lemme see
-7 Muslims caught in Miami planning our destruction
-Shooting in Cali of Jews at El Al counter by Muslim
-Shooting in Wash of Jews at synagogue by Muslim
-Shooting in NYC of Jewish schoolbus by Muslim
-3 Muslims caught in Buffalo planning our destruction
-Muslim caught in Washington trying to smuggle explosives through. For. Our. Destruction.
-Muslims caught in NYC planning to bomb the bridges and tunnels (1990's)
-Muslims caught planning to bomb a NTC tunnel (2006)
- 9/11, courtesy of muslims
- The first world trade ctr bombing. Thank you again, Muslims.

and these are the ones just off the top of my head.
But NOOOOOO, it's not a "Muslim" thing. It's obviously, per the MSM, anything but a Muslim thing.
Reeks of PC liberalism

Just out of curiosity, exactly hom many Arabs, Muslims, and "arab or muslim looking" people were killed by random atacks post 9/11? How many were injured at all seriously (being shouted at, or pushed, doesn't count. Being shot, or beaten, does)?

Got any numbers to back up your claims?

Or are you just biggoted against the American people, and willing to accuse them of committing, and being willing to commit, all sorts of crimes, despite lacking any evidence for your accusations?

[ELM: Look here. And here.

Geez, Eric, whose mailing list did you get on?

I suspect that well-grounded fears of ignorant and violent backlash against innocent members of vilified and vulnerable minority groups might have something to do with it.

You mean like maybe some Jews will get shot? Oh wait -- that just happened.

That's the bitter irony here: you're worrying about the vilification of a subculture that is vilifying another culture to the point people in that subculture are actively murdering those they vilify, on the grounds that discussing such a subculture might provoke violence against the minority group they belong to.

TallDave,
You make it sound as if there's something wrong with villifying Jews, but as far as I can see, it's perfectly justified. Jews really are greedy manipulators (Abramoff) who engage in death threats and violence against their perceived enemies (the JDL), and worm their way into government where they advocate the invasion of Muslim nations (Wolfowitz) . Surely, there's nothing wrong with encouraging hatred against such a vile people.

Or could there be a flaw in my reasoning? Is it possible that sharing a religion or ethnicity with Abramoff doesn't make all Jews complicit in his crimes? Is it conceivable that there are decent Jews as well as criminal Jews and that the former deserve to live in safety and security without being attacked and threatened because they've been tarred with the crimes of the latter? And if this is true of Jews, isn't it just possible that it might be true of Arabs and Muslims as well?

Eric:

The unfortunate backlash of getting referenced at Instapundit: you are then subjected to the vitriol of bottom-feeders.

Ok, so, having followed both the links you gave, we have one death, one serious injury, and a bunch of threats / attempts.

I say "a bunch", but were talking about 134 criminal prosecutions, both State and Federal, and at least one of those cases was for making a threat via telephone.

That's out of 300 million Americans, over a time period of at least three years.

For this we need media self censorship? For this we get to act like America is a nation of violent biggots who'll lash out and murder at random if we don't lie to them, and hide the truth from them?

BTW, how many random Americans have Muslims / Arabs murdered, attacked, threatened, or tried to attack in the last 5 years? And what do those attacks say about them?

Just curious.

You know what, I have a brilliant idea. You see, the press report negative things about Israel, and some lunatic Moslems respond by murdering Jews. This is clearly a bad thing. It shows that people should have "well-grounded fears of ignorant and violent backlash against innocent members of vilified and vulnerable minority groups".

So what should people do about those fears? I know, the press should therefore respond by no longer printing stories that show Israel, or Jews, in a bad light, just like you're approving of them doing for the Moslems / Arabs.

Simple!

I look forward with great anticipation to your call for the Media to protect these "innocent members of [a] vilified and vulnerable minority group". I'm sure it will happen any day now.

Right.

In one case, you have an isolated individual, working on the basis of an ideology thoroughly disavowed by his government and the vast majority of his countrymen, who is prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his crime. In the other, you have an individual, working independently, but with the full support of millions of his co-religionists around the world, some of whom are very actively trying to destroy your country. And your position is: a bit of bias against the former is OK, or at least understandable, against the latter is not.

And, this position makes sense for what reason?

I am also trying to understand the logic of Eric's post. I think that his point is that it's ok to whip up an "ignorant and violent backlash" so long as it's against innocent "white guys with crewcuts" In other cases it's not ok. I assume that he is excluding Jews from the white-guys-with-crewcuts category. Oh, and remember that we're not supposed to stereotype people either! My these PC rules get so confusing.

[ELM: Glenn Reynolds observed that some in the media were quick to generalize Timothy McVeigh's culpability to all conservatives, but slow to generalize the Seattle shooter's to all Muslims. He wondered why that might be, implying -- I think -- that the media either had sympathy for the Seattle shooter but none for McVeigh, or was too constrained by "political correctness" to generalize guilt.

I would think that generalizing the guilt of solo actors to entire groups is always a bad idea, but hey ... it was Glenn's point, not mine.

In any event, my post simplyresponded to Glenn's by suggesting that there is an alternative explanation for why the media might be slower to attribute individual guilt to groups in some cases than others, if in fact that's what the media has done: attributing individual guilt to beleaguered and vulnerable minority groups is a lot more dangerous to the members of those groups than attribution of individual guilt to the group of "white people."

Sorry if you find that hard to understand.]

We don't find it hard to understand. We find it hard to justify.

We thing "honest reporting" involves reporting what's going on, not deciding for the rest of us which publically available facts we can, and can't, "handle".

We further note that every time the news media do this, it's in a way that advances a left-wing political agenda. And find it very amusing to see how people twist and squirm to avoid admitting that obvious fact.

Reporting that the war on terror is real, and important for Americans, hurts the Democrats. Therefore the press will do everything they can to avoid reporting that. To the extent of making themselves look like total idiots are they essentially censor themselves in order not to have to discuss those unpleasant facts. (See Patterico's post making fun of the LA Times for their idiocy doing this.)

[ELM: Greg, let's take a step back, OK? Could you please spell out how you would justify the attribution of the Seattle shooter's guilt to all American Muslims? That's the argument you're defending, but you haven't spelled it out, so I'm not entirely sure how it would go.

Then, after you've done that, would you also justify the attribution of Timothy McVeigh's guilt to all on the political right? Youl'll need to do that too, because the validity of that attribution was also implicit in Glenn's original criticism of the media for not being consistent in their attribution of individual guilt to groups.

Unless, of course, Glenn was arguing that attributing the guilt of individuals to groups is generally wrong, in which case he and I agree, and you are left there on your own trying to justify the group culpability of American Muslims.]

I don't think anyone is recommending attribution of full guilt to ALL American Muslims because of the actions of an individual. The issue is: Good, liberal people seem to have no problem looking at buffoons like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and making broad generalities about evangelical Christian and even Christianity itself. Why are they loath to do so with Islam, especially when we are every day presented with examples of Islam acting as ideological fuel for terrorism? Why urge caution on the one hand and not on the other?

In protesting my statement that you declared

"it's ok to whip up an "ignorant and violent backlash" so long as it's against innocent "white guys with crewcuts" In other cases it's not ok."

you simply restated it as

"attributing individual guilt to beleaguered and vulnerable minority groups is a lot more dangerous to the members of those groups than attribution of individual guilt to the group of "white people."

Sorry if you find that hard to understand.

Could you please spell out how you would justify the attribution of the Seattle shooter's guilt to all American Muslims?

No, I can't, because that's not what I think should be done.

What I do think should be done is honest reporting. "An Arab terrorist attacked a Seattle Jewish center today, mudering at least one women, and injuring six others.
...
"This is the x'th Arab / Moslem terrorist attack in America since 9/11, bringing the death total to y and the number injured to z. The police have stated that, at this time, they do not believe he was part of a larger terrorist group."

Now, did you see any "news" reports that managed to give that sort of honest report, instead of the "we can't figure out why he would have done something like that" BS? No? I didn't either. Why? Because our press are contemptible partisan hacks, rather than even smei-honest reporters.

What Glenn was pointing out was that the Press had no problem making large scale generalizations when they could use it to attack their political enemies (McVeigh case), but in this case, the press has refused to do any thinking at all (the "we can't imagine why he did this" BS articles), because honest reporting would hurt the press'es political allies.

Is that really hard to understand? It's not about protecting minorities, it's about pushing a political agenda.

[ELM: And the "press'es political allies" in this situation are...? Who?]

[a further thought from ELM: By the way, Greg, would you please link us to a couple of these countless MSM articles that say "we can't imagine why he did this?" I'm having trouble finding them, and I'm not inclined to believe that this was the MSM "line" just because Glenn Reynolds or Michelle Malkin tells me it is. Some proof, please.]

You asked for proof that the MSM said that they "could not imagine why he did this." The headline from the LA Times read "Jewish Center Shooter's Motive is a Mystery" despite the fact that his declared motive was contained in the article. See here for details:

http://patterico.com/2006/07/30/4935/la-times-editors-we-just-cant-solve-the-mystery-of-why-that-muslim-guy-shot-at-all-those-jews/#more-4935

[ELM: Dave S., in what way is that front-page teaser an inaccurate summary of the article it actually summarized? (Note that the words you quote were not the article's headline. They were the front-page teaser; the headline read "Friends Had No Idea He Was Violent") Would you have the same objection if the teaser had read "Jewish Center Shooter's Motive Is A Mystery To Friends, Family, Law Enforcement?"

But let's stop beating around the bush here. Please tell us just why the LA Times would wish to conceal an American Muslim's violent antisemitism. What is the political position that this would enhance?

One more thing: if a reporter were assigned to write a piece examining the background and motives of a person accused of murder, who would you expect him to consult? The accused's family, friends, and associates, and law enforcement officials involved in the investigation? Or would it be sufficient just to consult Patterico, Reynolds, and Malkin?

Eric, Again, you quibble about the details and leave the substance of these comments unchallenged. Omigosh! I called a "teaser" a "headline."! So let me correct that now.

The TEASER said, "Jewish Shooter's Motive is a Mystery." It didn't say it was a mystery to "friends, family, and law enforcement." How was that inaccurate? Simple. His motive was NOT a mystery as there were quotes from him in the article that made his motive clear.

It apparently wasn't a mystery to his victims and intended victims either since, among other things, he said "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,’ before opening fire on everyone,”

I did not say that the LA Times had a particular agenda here. You asked for links to articles where the MSM was saying that they couldn't imagine why he did this and I gave you one.

Now, you want to rewrite the headline, pardon me, the teaser, and argue about that. Sorry, but I only want to discuss what they wrote, not what you think they meant.

One more thing. You ask who should the reporter have consulted when attempting to discern the shooters motive. Well, the reporter did discern the motive and reported it in the article.

Why do you think they wrote an inaccurate teaser. Was it simply incompetence, or do you have another explanation?

ELM: The claim here from the get-go, implied initially by Glenn Reynolds and then elaborated on by many commenters at this site, is that the "mainstream media" have an agenda that would be ill-served by reporting the shooter's motive. I want to know what that agenda is supposed to be.

ELM: And the "press'es political allies" in this situation are...? Who?]

Gosh, I don't know. Who could it possibly be?

Democrats? Nah, that's too easy, too obvious.

ELM: Huh? Why would Democrats wish that an Arab-American's anti-semitic motives for killing a Jew not be known? What on earth are you talking about?

ELM: Dave S., in what way is that front-page teaser an inaccurate summary of the article it actually summarized?

The points it that it is an accurate summary of the article. And that the reason it's an accurate summary is because of left-wing political bias in the US "Mainstream" press.

Let's take two scenarios:

Scenario 1:
A white male goes into a black cultural center, says "I'm tired of you black people stealing white people's jobs. I'm going to engage in my own affirmative action." He then proceeds to shoot 7 black women, killing one of them.

Do you imagine that the headline would have read "Friends Had No Idea He Was Violent"? Do you think the "teaser would have read "African-American Center Shooter's Motive is a Mystery"?

Do you think that, after the "friends and family" expressed their surprise, the reporters might have asked some questions about his political views? Followed up a bit on the statements he made before he committed murder?

Do you think the press might, just possibly, have made fun of any police spokesman stupid enough to express mystery as for why this white racist had decided to murder black people?

Do we really need to ask these questions?

Scenario 2:
An Arab male goes to a Jewish cultural center, says "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,", and then proceeds to shoot 7 women, killing one of them.

The friends and family say "gosh, we had no idea he was so violent." What's the chance of the reporters asking some followup questions. You know, like:
Had he expressed support for [terrorist] groups like Hezbollah before?
What was his opinion about terror attacks against Israel?
What Mosque did he attend? Did people there talk about Jews as "dogs" or "pigs" or "monkeys"? Was it a Wahabbi Mosque?

IOW, would the reporters act like reporters, or censors. In this case, they acted like censors.

ELM: OK, Greg, I'm almost there in terms of understanding the argument. Just help me with this last point: how does it advance the mainstream media's political agenda to conceal or ignore Arab or Muslim antisemitism? Is it that the mainstream media shares the Arab or Muslim perspective on these sorts of things? On other things as well?

ELM: The claim here from the get-go, implied initially by Glenn Reynolds and then elaborated on by many commenters at this site, is that the "mainstream media" have an agenda that would be ill-served by reporting the shooter's motive. I want to know what that agenda is supposed to be.

I already answered that once, but since you appear to have missed it I'll answer it again:

The US (and the rest of the West) is in an existential war against Islamic Fundamentalism. The Republicans acknowledge this, and want the US to win.

The Democrats refuse to acknowledge this, and would rather see the US lose, than see George Bush lead the US to victory. (Note, a solid minority, at least, of the Democrat Party base is fundamentally opposed to any US victory. The rest would prefer the US to win as part of a UN lead fight, but would be willing to see the US win it alone, so long as the US is being lead by Democrats at the time.)

The vast majority of the American people want to see the US win any time it gets into a fight, and couldn't care who is running the country for the victory, so long as we win. The Democrats lose those people's votes whenever the war against the RIFs (Radical Islamic Fundamentalists) becomes people's top priority.

Talking about terrorists attacking the US makes defeating them a higher priority, and those makes people more likely to vote Republican. The press don't want to see that, and so do everything they can to downplay the War.

Is that clear enough for you?

ELM: Yes. I get it. The Democrats and the mainstream media want America to be beaten by Muslim fundamentalism.

Greg, you live in a world that must be even more terrifying than the real one.

"ELM: The claim here from the get-go, implied initially by Glenn Reynolds and then elaborated on by many commenters at this site, is that the "mainstream media" have an agenda that would be ill-served by reporting the shooter's motive. I want to know what that agenda is supposed to be."

I never made that claim. I chalk up the inaccurate and incomplete reporting to political correctness and/ or incompetence. What is interesting to me is that Jews are exempt from the PC kid glove treatment and are now fair game for the left. Take a look at some of the comments on posts about Israel's invasion of Lebanon at the Huffington Post, Eric. The anti-semitism has run wild over there. Why is Hezzbolah favored over Israel over there? Doesn't this deference to the enemies of Israel bother you?

ELM: Yes. I get it. The Democrats and the mainstream media want America to be beaten by Muslim fundamentalism.

Greg, you live in a world that must be even more terrifying than the real one.

The NY Times revealed the Swift program, which even the NY Times agreed was:
1: Entirely legal
2: Successful
3: Something the NY Times had previously called for the US to do

By revealing it they ended its effectiveness.

You don't do that if you want the US to win.

A big chunk of the Dems are making a push to get rid of Lieberman. Why? Because he's more interested in winning the War on Terror than he is in beating Bush. This, to the Democrats, is treason, because nothing is more important than beating Bush.

The Democrats have settled on a campaign position on Iraq: they want the US to lose, as soon as possible. Unilateral surrender and retreat is what they want. After all, it worked so well in Vietnam.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100743.html

The US Press are currently being used to deliver Hezbollah and al Qaeda propaganda to the US. The US Press are acting as eager accomplices in this, uncritically accepting the photos they're given, even when they're obvious BS (real "rescue workers" get rather messy. The Hezbollah ones are often quite clean, since their real job is propaganda).

A NY Times photographer was with Shiite scum as they tried to ambush and kill US troops. All the "reporter" tried to do was to get photos of the attacks. His editor praised his "courage" (for getting the photos, not for trying to keep an enemy of the US from murdering a US soldier).

If you really think the US Press want the US, under President Bush, to win the War on Terror, then you are so divorced from reality that there are no polite phrases to describe your mental state.

If you think US Transnational Progressives want to see the US successful at any "unilateral" activity, then you understand nothing about the Transies.

You want to live in La La land, that's fine (it does seem to be the natural home of members of the "reality based community"). I live in the real world, where actions have consequences, results matter more than intentions, and people are judged by what they do, not what they say they believe in.

I'll take my world, and his:

http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/index.html

Dave S,
1. How does that teaser serve the aims of political correctness? If the teaser had read, "Shooter's motives crystal clear," would that have been unPC?

2. How does Haq's statement implicate Islam or Muslims in general? Imagine that someone is disenchanted with Christianity and turns to Islam, eventually converting. A few weeks into the Lebanon mess, he bursts into a Jewish center, proclaims, "I am a Christian American, angry at Israel," and starts shooting. Keeping in mind that antisemitism has long been an element in Christian culture, that many have claimed religious justification for it (see "Christ-killer"), and there have been attacks on Jewish centers by self-proclaimed Christians before (see Buford Furrow), would we be fair in blaming Christianity or Christians in general for the shooting?

3. Even assuming it's reasonable to extrapolate from some idiot commenters at the Huffington Post to widespread antisemitism on the left, how does that relate to this issue? Are you suggesting that the LATimes was motivated by antisemitism? Or are you saying that we'd be rectifying an injustice if we encouraged more hatred of Muslims? The notion of battling hatred by encouraging more hatred seems irrational at best.

Beth,
1. It would be unPC if they actually said what the motives were. There seems to be a reluctance to say that a large number of Moslems want to kill Jews (and other infidels) and to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. I do not understand why.
2. I never suggested that it was appropriate to blame and entire group for the actions of one individual. I said it was not ok to whip up an "ignorant and violent backlash" against any group, including "white guys with crew cuts." You ignore the reality that we have a lot of Moslems calling for the killing of Jews and Christians. We don't need to be hypothetical about that; it's really happening. When large numbers of Christians start calling for a holy war against other religions, let me know and I will not hestitate to condemn their actions.
3. Where do you get this stuff? Why try to put words in my mouth? Can you not comment on what I said? I meant only what I said: "Why is Hezzbolah favored over there (HuffPo)?" I am actually trying to expand on the topic.

Finally, I already stated what I thought was behind the LA Times actions: PC and/ or incompetence. IOW, the editor who wrote the teaser probably did not read the article. I do not encourage anyone to hate. I think hatred is wrong. I do not see how you could reasonably infer from anything that I wrote that I was encouraging more hated.

There seems to be a tendency to rephrase one another's comments, and then attack these made up comments. To assist in the whole process, let me summarize my initial:
1. It is wrong to incite one group against another. It does not matter if the group is a minority or majority group.
2. The LA Times claimed in its teaser that it did not know the shooter's motive.
3. I cannot tell a teaser from a headline, but I think it's a distinction without a difference.
4. The teaser was misleading. I can only guess why that occurred. I suspect political correctness and/ or incompetence.
5. Some lefty blogs favor Hezzbolah over Israel. I wonder why.
6. We should all love our fellow man-- or woman if you are inclined to phrase things in that manner/

If Democrats really wanted the U.S. to lose in its fight against terrorists, they would be supporting George Bush and his incompetent administration.

They would be cheering that Osama Bin Ladin is still at large, that American troops are bogged down in a country that was not a significant source of terrorism against our nation and that the real dangerous regimes, such as Iran and North Korea, are merrily building nukes, content in the knowledge that the U.S. doesn't have the military capacity to come after them.

Democrats would also be pleased that after decaling war on terrorism, Bush asked nothing of the American people -- no draft, no war tax, no sacrifice.

Maybe we can hold out until he's out of office.

It would be unPC if they actually said what the motives were.

The article says, "Haq reportedly shouted about his anger toward Jews, toward Israel and its war in Lebanon, and toward U.S. policy in Iraq." Doesn't that qualify?

I never suggested that it was appropriate to blame and entire group for the actions of one individual. I said it was not ok to whip up an "ignorant and violent backlash" against any group, including "white guys with crew cuts"

Then why keep stressing how much Muslims hate Jews?

You ignore the reality that we have a lot of Moslems calling for the killing of Jews and Christians. We don't need to be hypothetical about that; it's really happening.

We don't need to be hypothetical about a lot of Christians calling for the killing of Jews, either. Buford Furrow is a real person, and Christian Identity is a real movement. (The ADL estimates its size at 25,000 to 50,000. I think that qualifies as "a lot.")

I meant only what I said: "Why is Hezzbolah favored over there (HuffPo)?" I am actually trying to expand on the topic.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that relates at all to the topic of how the media has covered this incident. Rather than risk putting words in your mouth again, I'll wait and let you explain the connection yourself.

The LA Times claimed in its teaser that it did not know the shooter's motive.

Haq's statements certainly point to a political and/or antisemitic motive, but other aspects of the case suggest otherwise. Perpetrators of such crimes are almost always in some way affiliated with extremist groups, if not as members then as consumers of their propaganda, and they almost always trumpet their attitudes long before they reach the point of action. None of this appears to be true in Haq's case, casting some doubt on his stated motive. Also, he was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, a disease commonly associated with impulsive, irrational, and occasionally violent behavior. That in no way excuses Haq's actions, but it was quite possibly a motivating factor.

The teaser was misleading. I can only guess why that occurred. I suspect political correctness and/ or incompetence.

In my experience, it's not all that unusual for headlines to be somewhat misleading and even less so for teasers. I don't understand why you find this one so suspicious.

Some lefty blogs favor Hezzbolah over Israel. I wonder why.

Name any position on any topic you want, and I bet you could find some lefty blogs and/or some righty blogs that favor it. I still don't understand how any of this relates to media coverage of Haq's crime.

Beth,
In response to your first comment, I am talking about the teaser and you are talking about the body of the article. There is an inconsistency between the front page teaser and the text of the article on page 22.

To your second comment, I don't know that I am stessing it, but the point is that there are LARGE NUMBERS of Muslims who hate Jews. I doubt that my words here are inciting a backlash against them.

To your third comment, I would not agree that acceptance of hate for Jews among Christians approachs anything close to the widespread acceptance of hate for Jews among Muslims. If you want to believe that you can, but I seriously doubt that there is much support for your position. When the Christians fill the streets of Dallas chanting, ""Death to Saudi Arabia", let me know and I'll reconsider.

To your fourth comment, I will acknowledge that I was going off topic.

To your fifth comment, again I refer to the page 1 teaser and you to the page 22 article. The teaser is misleading.

To your sixth comment, you say that you find that headlines are frequently misleading. Do you then join me in my criticism of the media, or is this ok with you? I assume that you are aware that many people only read the headlines.

To your final comment, I accept your challenge. Please refer us to a conservative blog with a readership comparable to the Huff Post that voices support for Hezzbolah. Please include a link.

Wow. I think there was a basic point here, which is that McVeigh's actions were generalized to a political movement he was not necessarily a part of, but generalizing a fanatic Muslim's actions to all Muslims would be confusing extremism with innocent practice of the same religious movement.

In other words, McVeigh is not an NRA person. The NRA lobbies big government and files lawsuits and funds candidates; from McVeigh's view it's a part of the problem. Generalizing McVeigh's actions is inaccurate, sure, but political violence in the country is rather rare. The idea that Democrats would band together and kill Republicans because they associated all Republicans with McVeigh is just silly. Most Republicans and most Democrats would just call McVeigh a fringe person. And that's what happened.

By contrast, fanatical Muslims are in fact Muslims, so the distortion might work. And it is likelier to work, given that religious hatred and misunderstanding is quite prevalent around the world and historically. It certainly exists to x degree in this country. And there is a necessary xenophobic and racial component to Islam that is not present in a political party -- most Democrats are white and most Republicans are white; but most non-Muslims and most Muslims are not of the same race, ethnicity, or identity.

So promoting the idea that all Muslims are like fanatical Muslims really does put law-abiding American Muslims at risk, because there are ignorant, xenophobic, racist, and parochial Americans who see American Muslims as aliens and who would attack them if given excuse. That there are some ignorant, racist, backwater xenophobes in this country says nothing about most Americans, white or not. But there is no reason the press should ignore that these people exist and might go out and commit violent crimes if news stories are inaccurately reported.