Outside Voices: Don’t judge all by one

Dallas Morning News, Nov. 6: When soldiers die on the battlefield, it’s a tragedy, but a normal one, if violent death can ever be thought of as normal. And then there are war-zone outrages, such as this week’s murder of five British soldiers in Afghanistan at the hands of a treasonous Afghan police officer, which are particularly shocking. But Thursday’s massacre at Fort Hood was a tragedy of another magnitude entirely.

Could there be a safer place for American soldiers than an Army base deep in the heart of Texas? If that weren’t astonishing enough, the two score dead or wounded at Fort Hood were shot by an American soldier. The horrific irony of this act is hard to comprehend.

It obviously could prove significant that the shooter was believed to be a Muslim, suggesting the motive might be ideological or religious anger, as opposed to post-traumatic stress disorder or some other psychiatric distress.

It is tempting, in our collective grief and anger, to jump to furious and intemperate conclusions. Given that this country has been engaged in a war on Islamist terror for most of this decade, it’s natural to focus on the killer’s religion. (“I wish his name was Smith,” an unidentified Army officer’s wife told ABC News, and who wouldn’t agree?)

The Pentagon estimates that roughly 3,000 American Muslims serve in the U.S. military, though they don’t have a precise count. Islamic soldiers no doubt get lots of grief serving in a military that’s occupying and fighting in Muslim countries, but serve they do – and by choice. They don’t deserve to have their patriotism and loyalty questioned because of this.

Washington Post, Nov. 6: After proposing a federal media shield law that did little to protect the relationship between journalists and their sources, the White House has agreed with the Senate Judiciary Committee on a revised – and much improved – version of the Free Flow of Information Act.

Under the latest proposal, in both civil and criminal cases the government (or another party seeking disclosure) would have to demonstrate that the confidential information it seeks from a journalist is “essential” to resolving the case and that it has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources. Judges would weigh the public interest in thorough news-gathering against the interest in disclosing the source.

Protecting the identity of sensitive sources is a pillar of American journalism. On the condition of anonymity, people come forward to point reporters in the right direction, or to offer direct testimony about violations of the public trust, or to expose abuses of power. This is vital for the public’s right to know and for democracy.