Crossroads Podcast: School Shootings And The Death Of Honest Questions

After each and every school shooting, the usual suspects in public life produce their familiar soundbites that draw cheers from the faithful in their various choirs in blue America and red America.

These well-rehearsed recitations are then quoted in liberal and conservative media, creating predictable shouting matches — such as the ones discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast.

One rhetorical domino topples into the next.

On the cultural left, everyone rages about the tragedy that their opponents — especially religious conservatives — do not support tighter gun laws. They make the same points, even if shootings occur in deep-blue states and cities with strict laws.

On the cultural right, leaders urge their followers to offer prayers for the victims and their families. These days, this litany is often followed with calls for candor about whatever manifestos or comments were left behind by the shooter.

This leads to a comment by a liberal voices — in government or newsrooms — that sounds like this: “Prayer is not freaking enough. Prayers does not end school shootings. prayers do not make parents feel safe sending their kids to school. Prayer does not bring these kids back. Enough with the thoughts and prayers.”

Image via X

Things get complicated when a shooter was part of a controversial group in American life, especially religious flocks or movements linked to the Sexual Revolution. At this point, any old-school reporters tempted to ask logical, factual, questions may collide with the evolving doctrines found in the revised standard version of the Associated Press Stylebook.

Now, count the dominos in this one section of an AP news story (not an “analysis” column) released after this week’s shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis by a gun-person who was quickly identified as Robert or Robin Westman:

FBI Director Kash Patel said on X that the shooting is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics.

Westman’s mother had worked at the church for five years, retiring in 2021, according to a church Facebook post that year. It’s not clear if Robin Westman ever attended the church or had been enrolled at the school. ...

On a YouTube channel titled Robin W, the alleged shooter released at least two videos before the channel was taken down. … In one, the alleged shooter shows a cache of weapons and ammunition, some with such phrases as “kill Donald Trump” and “Where is your God?” written on them.

A second video shows the alleged shooter pointing to two outside windows in what appears to be a drawing of the church, and then stabbing it with a long knife. ...

Federal officials referred to Westman as transgender, and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey decried hatred being directed at “our transgender community.” Westman’s gender identity wasn’t clear. In 2020, a judge approved a petition, signed by Westman’s mother, asking for a name change from Robert to Robin, saying the petitioner “identifies as a female and wants her name to reflect that identification.”

It’s interesting that Westman’s gender identity “wasn’t clear,” even though his mother had testified, in a reference in that same paragraph, that her child “identifies as a female and wants her name to reflect that identification.”

Doesn’t modernized AP style stress that individuals should be identified according to their chosen gender identities? Videos posted by the accused also contained — see these New York Post reports — contained strong messages linked to gender and LGBTQ+ issues.

Was his or her “tired of being trans” confession posted online was a sign that Westman had switch back to his male identity and, thus, his gender “wasn’t clear”? These are complicated times.

Similar tensions are easy to spot in the dramatic double-decker headline on this New York Times report:

Minneapolis Suspect Knew Her Target, but Motive Is a Mystery

The shooter who attacked a Catholic school on Wednesday posted social media videos and writings that betrayed a litany of grievances and obsessions.

Gender identity was not a problem for America’s most influential newsroom, but note that this clearly stated gender identity was not linked to a motive.

Robin W. Westman, who officials said strafed the church through the stained glass windows, killing two children, was believed to have once attended the school at Annunciation Catholic Church. …

Her mother, Mary Grace Westman, worked in the business office of the church for five years before retiring in 2021. And in a video posted on social media, the suspect showed a hand-drawn rendering of the Annunciation interior. And Ms. Westman, armed with three weapons, seemed to choose the time carefully. She barricaded the doors during the first all-school Mass of the academic year, the police said.

Nevertheless, the Times then noted, in very authoritative language:

But it is hard to fathom what drove Ms. Westman to attack before killing herself, despite the dark and violent writings and videos she left behind.

The writings and video images were quite strange and, for example, included fierce statements of anti-semitism that once would have been labeled as radically right-wing but, today, could also be considered radically left-wing.

Once again, spot the falling journalism dominos in this next passage:

On social media, some conservative activists have seized on the shooter’s gender identity to broadly portray transgender people as violent or mentally ill. The police did not provide any motive for the attack, but Ms. Westman’s extensive social media history was a contradictory catalog of anger and grievance.

In seemingly stream-of-consciousness videos that she posted, she fixated on guns, violence and school shooters. She displayed her own cache of weapons, bullets and what appear to be explosive devices, scrawled with antisemitic and racist language and threats against President Donald Trump.

The videos also show pages from a diary, with long entries describing self hatred, violence against children, and a desire to inflict harm on herself. The diary entries are almost entirely written in English, but using Cyrillic letters. A sticker in the diary displays L.G.B.T.Q. and transgender flags with a gun and the slogan “Defend Equality.”

In the podcast, I noted that it has become difficult for reporters to ask many logical questions about basic facts, after many mass shootings, because these questions hint at issues that clash with evolving journalism doctrines.

It’s hard to ask questions about evidence that a shooter’s actions are linked to mental-health struggles. Why? Yes, note information about an online diary “with long entries describing self hatred, violence against children, and a desire to inflict harm on herself.” Would follow-up questions hint that a shooter struggling with gender issues was “violent or mentally ill”? At some point, reporters may even hesitate to ask about gun-laws limiting purchases by people receiving treatments for mental-health issues.

It’s hard to ask questions drugs in a shooter’s blood system if, once again, that might point to medications linked to mental-health treatments or even efforts to switch genders. The Times piece did, however, mention that Westman “worked at a local cannabis dispensary for several months earlier this year.”

It’s hard to ask question about a shooter’s motives, after an attack on a church, since journalists now view many religious groups as camps of culture-war activists fighting against Sexual Revolution “reforms.” Did the attack in question attack target a good church or a bad church? Reporters may not want to study collections of headlines about the rising number of attacks on religious sanctuaries.

Questions are dangerous things. Meanwhile, news consumers can watch the dominos fall — one tragic mass shooting after another.

Enjoy the podcast, if that is possible, and please pass it along to others.