What papers should have reported in attempted terror attacks

Last week, law enforcement officials arrested three men on suspicion of engaging in terrorist activity, in two separate incidents. The men were, by all indications, Muslim. Yet much of the mainstream media, from the Associated Press to the New York Times, failed to report this, leading to a stream of criticism from across the blogosphere.

Should these media outlets have done so? Does religion, in these cases, really matter?

In some ways, no. What matters is what those accused allegedly did — in these instances, attacking or plotting to attack military buildings in and around Washington, D.C., and Seattle. In an ideal world, we would look only at the actions themselves, like those of Ethiopian-American Yonathan Melaku, a Marine reservist who was arrested lurking near the Pentagon, carrying what officials called a “suspicious-looking” knapsack. Melaku also carried a notebook in which he had written such phrases as “al Qaeda,” “Taliban Rules,” and “defeat coalition and allies and America.” A search of his backpack further revealed bags of what forensics later determined was ammonium nitrate — a substance used in making explosives. And a subsequent search of Melaku’s home, according to the affidavit filed in the case, uncovered a homemade video of Melaku opening fire on the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Washington, D.C., and uttering, as he did so, the war cry used by Islamic extremists, “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “God is great.”

Arguably, the video and jottings in Melaku’s notebook indicate connections with Islam. But is “indication” enough? After all, “Yonathan” is a Christian name, and most Ethiopians in the United States are Christian. Why wouldn’t reporters investigate whether Melaku was, perhaps, a Christian who happened to sympathize with al Qaeda? Wouldn’t that be important, a sign of a new threat, perhaps, or a new direction — an indication, even, that al Qaeda’s efforts at radicalizing American youth were even more successful than we’d realized?

The New York Times feels otherwise. Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy, asked about the glaring absence of the word “Muslim” in the paper’s coverage, explained in an email, “It is our position that the fact he was said to be carrying a notebook with references to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda is far more relevant to the crime he is charged with committing than whether he may or may not be Muslim.” Perhaps. But it still does not explain why the paper failed to investigate — or, if it did, report on what it learned.

Meanwhile, in Seattle, Walli Mujahideh — born Frederick Domingue Jr. — and Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, who changed his name from Joseph A. Davis when he converted to Islam in prison, were charged with “conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction” against a military processing center in downtown Seattle. Much of the media coverage, including that in the New York Times, failed to mention Davis’ jailhouse conversion or the fact that the men were Muslim. Even as the police arrested them, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., was conducting hearings about the dangers posed by Islamic proselytizing in U.S. prisons — to much criticism, both from liberals and from Muslim groups around the country. Their ire is understandable, though: If our most trusted sources of information fail to tell us when radicalization in prisons actually occurs, why would we not object to such accusations?

So while, ideally, religion shouldn’t matter, in a world changed by 9/11, wars abroad and failed terrorist attacks at home, it does. These men’s motives are based on what they view as an attack on Islam, placing their religion at the very center of their alleged crimes.

These two cases suggest that young Muslims are indeed being radicalized in America. Americans have a right to know — and the press has an obligation to inform them — both of Islamic terrorism in the homeland and of the vulnerability of Muslim-American youths to those who seek to recruit them for jihad.

Confirming these facts allows us to confront the issue — and to stop it before it is too late. If it is politically incorrect to say so, so be it: It could be fatal if we don’t.

It is, in other words, one thing to exclude information that is neither relevant nor needed. But withholding vital facts, or failing to inquire where facts are not yet certain, is irresponsible journalism. A free and ethical press must seek to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even when it’s an inconvenient one.

ENDS

© Scoop Media