>I agree that that's terrorism. I think the point Walter was making is the narrative we hear. When a Muslim (or someone with a name that sounds Muslim) is involved, the incident is quickly reported as terrorism. When the shooter is white (the vast majority of mass shooters) and clearly not Muslim, the narrative is that he (and almost all mass shooters are "he") is mentally ill, and it's a struggle to get the word "terrorist" used.

Candidly, it is the opposite.

There is a report that right after the San B. tragedy, the White House pressured the FBI to throw some fog onto the situation (even though the FBI knew from the beginning it was an act of terrorism associated in some manner either with ISIS or Al-Q or a related group). There is also a report that Obama convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy.

CNN's Erin Burnett tried to speculate that the woman's involvement in the shootings wasn't due to radicalization, but rather "port partum psychosis". As someone who has been treated for depression and as someone who knows more than a few things about post-partum depression, Burnett's attempt at cover is pathetic. So on your line that many push a context for mental illness if the shooter is white - as far as I'm concerned, the mainstream media has no problem pulling out the "mental illness" card if it means providing cover for doctrines where our president has biased sympathies.

So the mainstream media will do just about anything to make excuses.

Also...on the "shooter is white...vast majority of mass shooters" - please go take a look at the stats per capita. The simple "vast majority" is very misleading.