Interesting story about explosive growth of hate groups and militias

[Pilgrim]

Time out for a little alumni pride here.  A very interesting story by a student from my alma mater got my attention.  A Washington State University student’s report on right-wing militias growing in size and number in the United States was published this week on the MSNBC.Com news front page.  This is part of a new "backpack journalism” program in which college students travel with a backpack containing a laptop, netbook camcorder, lots of pens and other gear necessary to file stories on multiple journalism platforms.  This young lady is now headed Guatemala and will file regular blog reports online for the Murrow College and contribute stories to the WSU student newspaper, the Daily Evergreen.

http://news.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=30713&TypeID=1

Man, has journalism changed in the past 20 years.  These students go out with journalism training (not just reporter training) and are ready to work in print, radio, TV, still photography, blogs and online writing.  It's a whole new game, and I think this kind of training makes perfect sense with the direction today's media are going.

Here's the story - it has some rather scary statistics about the rapid growth of U.S. hate groups and militias:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10602763-election-economy-spark-explosive-growth-of-militias

And clearly, some of those described in the story have left comments below the story. It's kind of a window into a paranoid segment of the U.S. population.

Dave - if too controversial, please delete.

[Denis]

Interesting article. I'd been under the assumption that a) militia groups have been increasing in popularity over the years anyway and that b) they increase in popularity when any Democrat gets elected. Those numbers, if correct, are pretty shocking!

[Pilgrim]

Same here.  I kinda figured there'd be a knee-jerk, conspiracy theory reaction, but that's more than I expected.

I think the WSU "backpack journalism" initiative is extremely cool and timely. They have completely re-designed their degrees to reflect how media work today. There are Murrow College students traveling to countries all over the world with equipment and training that allows them to report in various media.  This was really unthinkable a few years ago.  These kids have posted some very impressive storied from third-world countries as well as "major power" countries.

A number of universities are changing their undergrad curricula to orient students to reporting in multi-media at one time.  Today's real journalist needs to be able to write a blog, polish a story for a newspaper, do a radio report, fire up a camera and file a TV story - everything happens at once, and people consume different media.  The days when you were a "newspaper reporter", a "radio reporter" or "TV reporter" are largely gone.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

"BPJ's" arose out of newsroom budget cuts in print and broadcast. The work those kids are doing now is a cost-cutting measure, not an innovation. What one person does now used to be the work or a reporter, photographer/editor and producer. Corporate newsrooms are getting the work of three folks for less than half the price of a single job they replaced. That's not good. When it works and they're hardworking, you get good news, but in my experience, the VAST majority of those folks entering the workplace think it's a short ticket to an anchor or editor desk. Instead of a group of people vetting a story, the entire editorial process is now being invested in what is in most cases, a VERY green employee (notice I didn't say "reporter".)The only upside is with such lax editorial controls, more and more actual news sometimes leaks out of what is usually a propaganda machine for the few media outlet owners. I hate to sound so jaded and negative, but I dealt with this crap firsthand for years and for every BPJ that is worth a shit, there were 20 more that aren't, and the ones that aren't are the ones who get the promotions.

[Dave W]

For a different perspective on what the SPLC now considers a "hate group", see this.

[Pilgrim]

For a different perspective on what the SPLC now considers a "hate group", see this.

Hmmm...that's a somewhat incoherent blog.  I don't get half the references the author makes.  Maybe you have to have been wearing the bedsheets for a while to understand it.

PBG, I understand your concerns.  All I can say is that not all BPJ programs are created equal.  We'd like to think that the one conducted by Edward R, Murrow's alma mater is a cut above the rest.

[Dave W]

Hmmm...that's a somewhat incoherent blog.  I don't get half the references the author makes.  Maybe you have to have been wearing the bedsheets for a while to understand it.

...

This is a blog at Reason, the country's leading libertarian magazine. You can agree or disagree with the opinions of authors there, but it's absurd to imply any connection to racism.

The author is talking about the fact that the SPLC includes anti-feminist sites in their definition of hate groups. The site he's discussing is one where men brag about picking up women for consensual sex and then dumping them. He obviously doesn't approve of the site, but he obviously doesn't think it's a hate group or that most people would think it's a hate group.

I posted the link because you posted an article which talks about the explosion of hate groups. This is a constant theme at SPLC, and I wanted to point out what a broad definition of "hate group" is used by SPLC.

[Pilgrim]

Fair enough!  I didn't dig into the site very far, and the result is that I wasn't as well informed as I should be.

I didn't find the blog very well written - I had a little trouble interpreting what he was saying.

I agree that there are a remarkable number of groups that can find hate anywhere.  Some are leftish, some rightish, and some are hard to categorize.  Some of them have good reason for their perception, others are simply using it as a way to express an agenda.  Stepping back from that, I personally don't find an increase in militias and related groups to be a positive development, regardless of their political orientation.  

A news story this morning pointed out that Americans tend to have a higher trust level of things and people at local levels, and the closer to a national or federal level things get, the less they tend to trust them.  I think that's a pretty accurate observation.

[dadagoboi]

A news story this morning pointed out that Americans tend to have a higher trust level of things and people at local levels, and the closer to a national or federal level things get, the less they tend to trust them.  I think that's a pretty accurate observation.

People in the states that get more money back from the federal government than they pay in distrust the feds the most.  Whites in the South being very high on that list.  There are people in my town who are home schooled, attend church at least 3 times a week, have never been 50 miles from home and don't ever want to be.  The only person they trust who's farther away than that is Jesus.

[Pilgrim]

Isn't that interesting?  I've been hearing some news stories that relate to that - I remember hearing one story out of Alabama today in which a local official commented that the local citizens needed to be careful about complaining about government spending, because the state gets back about $1.60 for every buck they send to DC.

I wonder if any local legislator would be brave enough to suggest that they pay additional taxes to fill in the gap if government funding is withdrawn.

[Nocturnal]

No issue with the college or the students, but I trust MSNBC LESS than I trust Fox news. Even my most left-leaning friends and family refer to MSNBC as nothing but party propaganda. MSNBC wouldn't back a story like this if it didn't promote their own agenda. This issue (so-called hate groups growing) has been discussed elsewhere and the thing that is startling to me is how almost anyone can now fall into hate-group categories. And I'm sorry, but not liking the president and his policies doesn't make you a racist. Not liking the president because he is half black makes you a racist. I didn't like Bush either, but I guess thats OK cause the left hated him. I'd be willing to bet that the average persons definition of what constitutes a hate group is quite different than the definition used by the SPLC. I'm sure that any of us here that own more than one gun can fall into a "militia" category somehow. Mine are only family heirlooms that you cannot buy ammo for anymore as far as I know. So does my gun ownership and distrust of the media and politicians make me a nut case?

[Pilgrim]

I think it makes you part of a majority party!  (Just not an organized one.)  I think I need to join you in that party/group/benevolent society.

Love the comment about MSNBC and Fox news!! Those two are definitely positioned in opposition to each other.

I also admit that I considered the well-deserved reputation of MSNBC before I posted originally...and I wasn't surprised that this story appeared there.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

People in the states that get more money back from the federal government than they pay in distrust the feds the most.  Whites in the South being very high on that list.

They are, in fact, the top of the list. They also top surveys in calling for cutting federal pork... unless it affects them directly: hypocrisy at its finest.

There are people in my town who are home schooled, attend church at least 3 times a week, have never been 50 miles from home and don't ever want to be.  The only person they trust who's farther away than that is Jesus.

That's not trust in Jesus. That's self-affirmation. The two have been swapped in the modern populist conservative lexicon.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

No issue with the college or the students, but I trust MSNBC LESS than I trust Fox news. Even my most left-leaning friends and family refer to MSNBC as nothing but party propaganda. MSNBC wouldn't back a story like this if it didn't promote their own agenda. This issue (so-called hate groups growing) has been discussed elsewhere and the thing that is startling to me is how almost anyone can now fall into hate-group categories. And I'm sorry, but not liking the president and his policies doesn't make you a racist. Not liking the president because he is half black makes you a racist.

MSNBC used to be a respectable network before they cast themselves as the anti-Fox. I wouldn't call them pro-Democratic party though, more pro "stir-stick." Fox is far more organized in line with Republican party interests. MSNBC is just a whiny kid trying to do that, but because the Democratic party base is too diverse, they only give the intellectually snobbish ultra-liberal view.

 I also agree that the SPLC's definitions of 'hate group' are far too broad and border on being thought police. Instead of fighting against excessive control by groups with dangerous self-interests, they are trying to enforce their own opinion as abstract policy. I trust the FBI's stats on hate groups much more.  The arm of government that scares me on defining hate groups is Homeland. Any group deemed a threat to national security by them or the NSA is subject to Patriot laws...not so scary with a responsible fed with constitutional checks on power, but our fed with either party in charge, has proven itself almost anything but resposible in recent years in regards to domestic threats.

 ...guess I just joined a hate group on somebody's list for saying that.

[Pilgrim]

Naaaaah.  Almost everyone here belongs to the "crusty-old-fart-with-an-opinion" club.  

You can always add "get offa my lawn..."