November 19th, 2009
10:37 AM ET

Political correctness and Ft. Hood killings

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/11/17/fort.hood.medals/story.fort.hood.boots.gi.jpg caption="Boots, rifles and helmets stand tribute to the military victims of the Fort Hood massacre." width=300 height=169]
Tom Kenniff
Special to CNN

Just hours after the first reports of the tragedy at Fort Hood surfaced, a divisive dialogue was developing on the talk shows and in the Internet blogosphere.

On one side were those arguing that shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's apparent bloodlust was an unfortunate byproduct of an overtaxed military forced to fight a multifront war against an uncertain enemy.

Television doctors expounded on the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder among veterans, often without indicating that Hasan had not been to war or suffered any obvious trauma that could explain the gruesome manifestation of his "stress."

Keep Reading...

Filed under: Fort Hood Shooting
soundoff (5 Responses)
  1. steve- virginia beach, va

    Political correctness can also lead to defamation and disenfranchisement of tens of millions of law-abiding lawful immigrant families. Historically we have used terms resident, nonresident, and illegal alien to denote citizens of a foriegn country and their status in the US.

    Unfortunately, pressure from special interests has created a political correctness that has resulted in illegal aliens usually being referred to as immigrants. This in turn has led to portrayal of lawful and law-abiding immigrants as being no different than illegal aliens whose existence in the US revolves around perpetually commiting crimes such as identity theft, document fraud, and/or tax evasion, and fraudulently obtaining benefits. This has now further evolved into a campaign by special interests to portray illegal aliens as little darlings who are the victims, thus providing in the minds of pro-illegal alien special interest groups reason to openly amd shamelessly embark on a campaign to deny free speech to those who oppose their agenda. And celebrate when they perceive that they have denied free speech to US citizens in our own country who oppose their agenda.

    In my opinion, it's not just SiNN. It's most media outlets that have become too concerned about political correctness. Concerned to the point that we are no longer the free, informed, and secure society that we once were. We need to care about sensitivity and fairness but also consider political correctness to be a seriously failed experiment.

    November 19, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  2. steve- virginia beach, va

    When political correctness or any agenda dictates what the media says or reports, what's being reported is no longer news. Sensitivity is one thing; but political correctness and agendas are over the line and often define the difference between news and propaganda and/or indoctrination. When the media bows or otherwise capitulates to political correctness or special interests, they not only deny us our right to be informed, but they also give up their own first ammendment rights to some degree. The right to be a free media.

    It not just the religion-related issues. Beginning this year, we've also had the federal government defining which news network(s) are legitimate news organizations and which aren't. And which members of the media are legitimate and which aren't. This not only undermines the Constitution, but also pluarlism upon which our country thrives. Without pluralism who would tell us when the pied piper is leading us to a cliff? Not to mention that a diversity of ideas often lead to the best soultions to problems.

    November 19, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
  3. Tim Gibson

    Good TV, bad politics, kind of leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth don't you think.

    November 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  4. Mitchell Paradis

    Re the horrific shootings at the US Army base at Ft. Hood:
    I have yet to hear anyone ask the question, "How did one shooter with only one pistol manage to kill 13 highly trained US soldiers and wound another 30+ without someone rushing and disarming him? Why was it necessary to wait through the carnage until a civilian cop came and aggressively charged him and finally put him down despite her own wounds?" It seems only logical to me that trained soldiers would have enough sense to mount an attack to subdue this guy before even the second person was shot. What happened? I would hope someone would ask the question.
    From a retired Marine

    November 19, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
  5. A. Smith, Oregon

    I pushed the word 'massacre' in all of my comments on this subject. The buzz word at that time was 'Fort Hood Shooting'. CNN adopted Fort Hood Massacre, and that phrase was adopted by MSNBC a couple days later. Must be a sheer coincidence.

    I have patiently explained how erroneous the term Militant Muslim or Islamic Militant is in regards to a Muslim who is faithfully following the duty's and obligations of his/her faith as clearly stated in the Koran.

    Does the News Media call Christian wing-nuts, Militant Christians, or Christian Militant? Of course not, but they also claim they are faithfully following the verses in their Bible and point out those very verses as commands of their God to them specifically.

    In the least, the News Media should start calling these Christian wing-nuts, Christian Militants to help the viewers discern that not all Christians want to blow up abortion clinics, nor do all Christians want to murder followers of Islam regardless of what Army Chaplin's state.

    November 19, 2009 at 12:17 pm |