Breaking - Shooting At Wisconsin Sikh Temple - Difference In Coverage Is Striking

[PaceAdvantage]

Another senseless shooting, but it strikes me how, even at this very EARLY stage of coverage, not only is NBCNEWS.com reporting on the skin color of the shooter, but is quoting someone (allegedly) close to the scene as saying:

"We have no idea," he said of the motive. "It's pretty much a hate crime. It's not an insider."

How differently would this story be covered if the shooting occurred inside a Church or a Synagogue, and the shooter was not white? I believe it would be vastly different, especially at this early stage. The name, identity and skin color of the shooter would not be revealed until such details were absolutely certified and conclusive via the proper authorities...

But here we apparently have a white male in his 30s, and the media is running with that right off the bat...no lead-cinch confirmation is necessary apparently...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...wisconsin?lite

A temple committee member, Ven Boba Ri, told the Journal-Sentinel that people inside the temple described the shooter was a white male in his 30s.

"We have no idea," he said of the motive. "It's pretty much a hate crime. It's not an insider."

Ri told the Journal-Sentinel the gunman walked up to a priest who was standing outside the temple and shot him. Then he went inside and started shooting.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'd just like to point out that first quote..."We have no idea..."

BUT, they DO have an idea that it was a hate crime?

Most likely, it is a "hate crime," whatever that is...a crime is a crime, no matter the motive. Would it make it any better if the shooter was pissed off at a guy who perhaps was cheating with his wife or girlfriend?

And that's the point..."WE HAVE NO IDEA..."

BUT, they know it's a hate crime...

Solid reporting...

[Tom]

Nothing more ridiculous than the idea of a hate crime.
Unless it is what pretends to be the news media.

[TJDave]

I read once where Sikhs carried daggers.

Probably not in their temple, though.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Another senseless shooting, but it strikes me how, even at this very EARLY stage of coverage, not only is NBCNEWS.com reporting on the skin color of the shooter, but is quoting someone (allegedly) close to the scene as saying: How differently would this story be covered if the shooting occurred inside a Church or a Synagogue, and the shooter was not white? I believe it would be vastly different, especially at this early stage. The name, identity and skin color of the shooter would not be revealed until such details were absolutely certified and conclusive via the proper authorities...

But here we apparently have a white male in his 30s, and the media is running with that right off the bat...no lead-cinch confirmation is necessary apparently...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...wisconsin?lite

Seven People are dead and you are concerned because the media is saying a white guy did it. Here's a clue. A white guy did do it. And a white guy did it in Aurora and a white guy did it in De Kalb and two white guys did it in Columbine. It was a Muslim at Fort Hood and an Asian at VA. Tech and in each case the identity of the shooter was revealed when it was known. So stop making up stories where there are none.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by TJDave

I read once where Sikhs carried daggers.

Probably not in their temple, though.

They carry ceremonial daggers everywhere. That does not mean they are effective weapons against a gun or that the average Sikh is skilled in their use.

My next door neighbors are Sikhs and they are very nice, very friendly people.

[mostpost]

I have been hearing on TV that this temple has had some problems in the past because some very stupid people think they are Muslims. They are not.

[PaceAdvantage]

The story has been updated...with some information thrown in for those whiteys out there who might be thinking of pulling a copycat maneuver because they ignorantly believe Sikhs practice the same religion as "the terrorists":

Sikh rights groups have reported a rise in bias attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Washington-based Sikh Coalition has reported more than 700 incidents in the U.S. since 9/11, which advocates blame on anti-Islamic sentiment. Sikhs don't practice the same religion as Muslims, but their long beards and turbans often cause them to be mistaken for Muslims, advocates say.

Sikhism is a monotheistic faith that was founded in South Asia more than 500 years ago. It has roughly 27 million followers worldwide. Observant Sikhs do not cut their hair; male followers often cover their heads with turbans -- which are considered sacred -- and refrain from shaving their beards.

I find the above rather astounding. It's almost as if the above paragraph is somehow justifying "incidents" on Muslims because of 9/11...just don't be an idiot and mistake a Sikh for a Muslim terrorist...

"Sikhs don't practice the same religion as Muslims, but their long beards and turbans often cause them to be mistaken for Muslims, advocates say."

Yeah, so? Are they saying it's ok to go after the "real" Muslims? Just don't attack us Sikhs as we aren't the same religious flavor?

Insanity.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Seven People are dead and you are concerned because the media is saying a white guy did it. Here's a clue. A white guy did do it. And a white guy did it in Aurora and a white guy did it in De Kalb and two white guys did it in Columbine. It was a Muslim at Fort Hood and an Asian at VA. Tech and in each case the identity of the shooter was revealed when it was known. So stop making up stories where there are none.

You truly are imbecilic.

I'm not concerned that the media is saying a white guy did it. White, Brown, Yellow or Black, whoever did it is a criminal and should be executed for such a blatant disregard for human life.

I'm concerned with how the media treats the reporting of such stories differently depending on the color of the skin of the criminal involved.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I have been hearing on TV that this temple has had some problems in the past because some very stupid people think they are Muslims. They are not.

So you're also saying it's OK to go after Muslims? Just don't be an ignorant dumb ass white guy and go after the Sikhs?

Wow.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Seven People are dead

Yes, seven people are dead, and there's nothing that can be done about them at this point. I didn't know any of them. I don't cry for everyone who is murdered every day in this country, do you?

I am talking about an aspect of the story...the coverage. If you don't like it, start your own thread mourning the dead.

In case you didn't notice, I started off my thread by calling this incident "Another senseless shooting."

Come at me again with more nonsense that avoids the actual point of the thread.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

and in each case the identity of the shooter was revealed when it was known. So stop making up stories where there are none.

Not quite. The identity of the shooters was NOT revealed immediately when they weren't known to be white.

The media waited patiently for the authorities to confirm the skin color of the shooter, which they obviously did not do in this case.

Therein lies the difference, and that is the point of this thread. If you don't want to discuss this, like I suggested earlier, start your own thread on the incident.

[woodtoo]

Multiculturalism=Fail
The Netherlands have done away with it recently,they finally got it.

[Tom]

Poor mostie, never has a clue what the conversation is about but always has a spin for it.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Come at me again with more nonsense that avoids the actual point of the thread.

Point of your thread? Other than pot-stirring, there isn't one. "Imbecilic", indeed..