Like everyone else, I have been watching coverage of the Ft. Hood shootings with great interest and with an ear tuned to the framings or the codes (to use Stuart Hall’s term) that are competing to rule the media discourse. So, I intend my provocative and intentionally ambiguous title to telegraph that question. How are Hassan and his actions being framed? I’ve been watching CNN and listening to NPR primarily, so those are my field materials here. There, as well as in the newspapers and blog entries I’ve seen, several different framings of Hassan seem to present themselves: 1) he is a solider with PTSD; 2) he is a troubled person caught in a personal crisis over career and relationships at midlife (thus he’s more like a “Post Office Shooter” or the DC Sniper); 3) he was motivated by religion, but it was his own individual interpretation of religion; 4) he was motivated by religion but he was influenced by someone (or someoneS) else (the suspect today is an Imam named Anwar al-Awlaki) who told him to do this (thus he’s some form of an “Islamic terrorist”). These are circulating in a nearly textbook case of competing and contested framings. So, let’s see what happens. The structuralists, modernists, liberal-pluralists, and rationalists among you will of course want to point out to me that the “facts of the case” will resolve this as they become known. To which I will respond–as a post-structuralist–that the framings in fact will influence the facts in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. This is obvious when we look ahead to whether, where, or how Hassan can be judged by an impartial jury. The way the situation is commonly framed will impose determinations along a number of dimensions.
One quick example of the competing framings, occasioned by the coincidence (?) of the Orlando shootings. On CNN, on Friday, within a single three-minute news hole, CNN personalities framed Hassan as someone who was clearly influenced by something larger and outside himself, and called Jason Rodriguez a “wacko.” There is a lot here.
Oh, yes, I’ll be self-revealing here. I’m interested to see what kinds of ways this post may be deployed as a result of the way I’ve titled it.
StewartHoover's Blog 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 10, 2009 at 9:28 am
Sam Simo
Stewart, so true about the framing. I’m afraid based on the morning shows this morning, the framing is rapidly moving to the relationship with Imam Anwar Al Awlaki. What I heard was all about “there was a relationship’, extensive emails, but ony then that these were in the context of “research.” More to on “Why the Army didn’t more aggressively follow up on this intelligence.” Obviouly implying there was something wrong, when in fact it appears that was not the case.
Robert Chase at Intersections just did his own Blog on the shootings. He focuses instead on the point, which should be the focus, of the powerful impact of exposure to those with PSTD can have on the counselor himself. Check it out.
http://www.intersectionsinternational.org/2009/11/10/Fort-Hood
November 10, 2009 at 10:13 am
stewarthoover
Thanks, Sam. Yes, I saw Bob’s pot this morning, and his is the most thoughtful reflection on the PTSD side of the story. Interestingly, one report I saw pondered whether Hassan might have PTSD-by-proxy.
November 10, 2009 at 12:26 pm
fish
Stewart,
It is interesting to compare Fort Hood coverage to the Orlando coverage and even to the Vail bar shooting coverage. In the last instance, media portrayed the shooter as a Vietnam Vet with PTSD; commenters on the Post Web site had much criticism of this characterization (including questioning the truth of the portrayal).
Lost in much of this coverage trying to analyze why someone takes a gun somewhere and starts shooting, it seems to me, is analysis of how easy it is to get high-powered weapons and ammunition in this country. Perhaps it’s ultimately possible to determine what psychological state propelled each of these men to violence. What enabled them to perpetrate that violence is far more concrete and information more easily obtained and reported. Yet it seems that the methods use aren’t a factor the media – or Americans – are willing to acknowledge.