Terrorist? Media name calling

As well as reading the local and national newspaper every morning I also subscribe to TIME magazine. Last month's magazine was focused on the shootings at Fort Hood that occurred this month. One of the most interesting things about the article, to me, wasn't the details or the "expert" opinions but the cover of the magazine for the month. It consisted of a portrait of Nidal Malik Hasan with is eyes blocked out with the word Terrorist? So why the ? Why has the media been so back and forth on what to call Hasan and how does their indecision on his identity influence on how the public views the incident?

CNN recently interviewed a criminologist by the name Pat Brown. His his interview Dr. Brown was quoted as saying this about the personality of Hasan. "He was simply a lonely guy who had issues, problems, psychopathic behaviors that escalated to the point where he wanted to get back at society, and he took it out on his workmates like most of them do." Never once while being interviewed would Dr. Brown discuss the possible impacts of Hasan's recent enthusiasm for Muslim faith or what the role of his faith had on his decision to attack the base.

The White House initially treated the situation in the same way. On November 5, after being notified of the killings President Obama addressed the nation in a rushed press conference. But instead of seeing an image of a somber Commander we saw a man who seemed completely unsympathetic. Opening the conference with "shout-outs" and jokes was not what people were expecting or what they wanted to see.

With this kind of reaction taking place my next question would be what the motivation is for avoiding calling him what he appears to be. One explanation could be political. If Obama should start calling him a terrorist then that would mean an act of Terrorism took place on U.S. soil during his presidency. Another could simply be that the national media and government is stuck in a definition debate. Should we call every Muslim that commits a murder or a crime in this country a terrorist? Is a terrorist only someone that is born on foreign soil and wants to hurt others? I don't have an answer to that question... and I would bet that the media doesn't either.

But what I do know is that a publics reaction to an event like this depends a lot on how the media frames it. And to just call Hasan a "lonely man" paints the wrong picture of what happened. As the details continue to emerge it is looking more and more like Hasan acted because of his beliefs. With personal emails linking him to fundamentalist groups, and cards referring to him as a fighter of Islam, it might make sense to call him a Terrorist. The TIMES article mentioned the idea of referring to him as a lone-wolf terrorist, or a terrorist that can self motivate from just the knowledge of other groups. And if its true that Hasan should be called a terrorist then does that mean that men like McVeigh should also be referred to as committing acts of Terror?

This issue is complicated and I won't go about pretending like I know the answers to these questions. But it seems to me that the media has for one reason or another failed to give this incident the intensity that it deserves. The tragedy at Fort Hood is the largest attack on a national military base in our country's history. And whether or not the military tribunal that will sentence Hasan refers to him as a terrorist, it is my sincere hope that they give him the death he deserves. But before then the media should give him his proper title.