The original CBS report had him being a "Black Muslim", but that has since been edited out of the CBS site. Now he's just a "digruntled soldier"
Is a 'black muslim' a 'black muslim' (IOW, a member of Farrakhan's cult, or someother bizarre offshoot of Islam considered heretical by mainstream Muslims, shia or sunni )? . Or is he a 'black muslim', (IOW, a black man who converted to Islam)?
Hopefully, once the media clarifies whether he belongs to a mainstream Muslim sect, or a cult like NOI or the one percenters or whatever, they'll begin reporting this.
If they do not, then this calls for massive complaints to any and all media outlets not giving us the full truth.
I think we have all come to terms with the Two Forms of APB
If it's a white perp, it's "white male, age 25-30, blond hair, hazel eyes, approx 200 lbs and 6'-6' 2" tall, wearing denim jeans and a white t shirt".
If it's a black perp, it's "a 6 foot male wearing blue jeans and a white t shirt".
All this attempt at 'not stereotyping black people' (which is why this nonsense began in the early 1990s, after demands to do so were made upon the national media by 'black activists' and protesters ; I remember those protests) has only led us to the point where, when a perp isn't described, everyone just assumes he's black. IOW, it's made the 'stereotyping' problem worse, rather than eliminating it.
And we've had to come to terms with the fact that only some crimes are worthy of nationwide attention:
Two straight men beat a gay man and leave him for dead in WY...that requires worldwide media exposure.
But two black guys torturing four white people, inflicting on them gratuitous humiliations like something out of a demented XXX film...that gets the local press, and not even the front pages (per freepers living in KS).
A truckload of white guys drags a black guy to his death in TX, that gets worldwide attention.
A carload of black guys deliberately runs down a white guy and kills him (also in TX), that gets a day or two of local press, a sheriff assuring everyone that there's 'no racial motivation', and media snickering over the victim's name and the fact that he lives in a trailer. (Ditto the homeless guy who wound up bleeding to death in Chante Mallard's windshield.)
And the Seattle mardi gras strippings, assaults, and murder...And the Cincinatti riots...and the Virginia assaults...And the rape/torture of Jesse Dirkheissing...etc.
But there's a difference between not reporting something at all, and reporting something dishonestly. I think a line was crossed in much of the DC sniper reporting, and if the media tries to conceal religion in this instance, they will be crossing that line between obscuring the news, and dishonestly reporting it.
They need to hear complaints if they do this, and they need to be reminded-once again-that they can no longer lie to us. Thanks to the internet, the day themedia could control what we know, and how much we know, is over FOREVER. If the media tries to'kill' a horrific crime (like the Wichita Horror) then locals with internet access will see to it that the news gets out. Media blackouts no longer work....I wonder why reporters on abc-cbs-nbc-cnn-et al can't understand this.