Remember when Stuart Nozette was arrested last month, that the Washington Post reported:
Nozette’s actions could be misinterpreted in ways that damage American impressions of Jews or provoke an overreaction that divides Americans.
Well actually the Post didn’t include any such line. It did note at the end of the article that prosecutors noted that Israel had nothing to do with Nozette’s espionage. But it did tell us this:
Sometime before Nozette took a foreign trip in January, he told a colleague that he would flee the United States if charged with a crime, the agent wrote. Nozette added that he would tell officials from an unidentified country and Israel “everything” he knew, the court papers allege.
This is, I suppose, part of the news story and legitimate news, but doesn’t it raise the specter of double loyalty that is often trotted out against Jews?
Yet here’s a story about Nidal Hasan.
A challenge for investigators is sorting out a potential thicket of psychological, ideological or religious motivations behind Hasan’s alleged actions. Hasan’s possible contact with extremists such as Aulaqi would complicate matters, suggesting that U.S. authorities may have missed chances to prevent the cleric from instigating this incident and others. But if it turns out that Hasan acted in the throes of an emotional breakdown, his questionable ties could be misinterpreted in ways that damage U.S. outreach to the Muslim world or provoke an overreaction that divides Americans.
Part of the Post’s reporting is to ensure that Americans don’t generalize from one man’s actions. While anti-Muslim hate crimes did increase after 9/11, they are back down again to very low levels. Why is it that when it comes to Muslims does the Washington Post (and American media in general) feel the need to tell us what to think?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
