One story of terrorism
does not negate another
We need better priorities. We need to floss instead of going to bed, or see a friend rather than watch another streaming show on television.
Terry Hagedorn argues in the editorial section of the newspaper (DP-April 7) that the killings of Christians by Muslims in Nigeria warrants more media attention than the killing of Muslims by a “Christian” in New Zealand.
This insight, which has more than just a grain of truth, turns out to be misleading.
The human toll of the Christchurch massacre and the toll of violence and civil strife in Nigeria are more than the human heart can accept.
What makes the New Zealand violence interesting to the media is the relative peace accorded the Muslim worshippers before the carnage. This reminds us of the peace before the storm in Squirrel Hill (Pittsburgh), where a synagogue was attacked.
What the media are pursuing is an increase in domestic terrorism fueled by white supremacist beliefs, which appear to thrive on social media. In other words, the Christchurch attack exposed social media as a way for radical beliefs to spread and persuade.
We no longer feel safe in our churches, synagogues and mosques, not to mention schools. Social media has allowed people to speak the unspeakable behind the anonymity of a web browser. We all know about the good that spreads on social media and that people can reconnect, but with the benefits comes a dark side.
A statement can be true and act in the service of misguided priorities. Indeed, the violence in Nigeria should be publicized, as the abduction of 300 Nigerian girls was almost five years ago.
There is also an appropriate reason to look for underlying factors behind terrorism. And this is why the media has been exploring the communication channels for the hatred that drove the crime. So, one media story does not and should not negate the other.
Steven Knudsen
Morgantown
