Over the holiday weekend, a group of predominantly white militiamen took up guns and began occupying the government's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Oregon, culminating in a tense standoff with law enforcement in the area. 
 
 It's a big story. This is an armed militia using the threat of violence to get the federal government to change the law — specifically, the gunmen want the feds to give up publicly managed land to local ranchers, loggers, and miners. And, yes, they are using the threat of violence: As Les Zaitz explained for the Oregonian, "In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said." 
 
 Yet media outlets don't seem to consider this an alarming story, instead treating it by and large as a peaceful protest. Here, for instance, is an Associated Press tweet about the events: 
 
 Peaceful protest in Oregon rancher arson case followed by building takeover at national wildlife refuge: https://t.co/nsIKxQlyIu — The Associated Press (@AP) January 3, 2016 
 
 For many on social media, the reaction seems very different from how the media would react if, say, black or Muslim protesters with guns took over a government building instead of a predominantly white group. 
 
 The media's reaction to a group of armed people taking over a government building was timid 
 
 One would think that an armed group taking over a government building would be a big deal. The public certainly seems to think so, with #OregonUnderAttack trending on Twitter and Malheur National Wildlife Refuge trending on Facebook. 
 
 But media outlets mostly seemed to shrug at the situation, at least at first. Here is the New York Times's front page as of Sunday afternoon, when the story was relegated to a sidebar: 
 
 And here is Fox News's front page, where it's hard to even see the story right by one about a hoverboard robbery: 
 
 The coverage also generally had little language about the threat of violence. The AP, for example, characterized the protests as peaceful, and Fox News called the group in Oregon "armed protesters." 
 
 Several people on social media complained that this story was getting much less — or at least a different kind of — attention than it would have gotten if these were mainly black or Muslim protesters. Here's a sampling of some tweets, which don't encompass the entire conversation but get to a lot of what people are upset about: 
 
 Can we please get 1 Muslim to join the right-wing terrorist militia in Oregon so our media can cover it? — John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) January 3, 2016 
 
 What's the difference between a terrorist cell and a militia? Religion and skin color. #OregonUnderAttack #GOP pic.twitter.com/mZiI0bQVDv — CDKing (@thedaleking) January 3, 2016 
 
 For those who don't understand why people say our criminal justice system is broken. #OregonUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/jfP7xXZSLf — Thor Benson (@thor_benson) January 3, 2016 
 
 Did I miss the call for the national guard in Oregon? I recall them in Ferguson and Baltimore. #OregonUnderAttack — rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) January 3, 2016 
 
 Generally, the sentiment is that if these were black or Muslim protesters, the media reports would be much more alarmed in nature. The media and public might not even call the militia members in Oregon "protesters," but instead refer to them as "thugs" or "terrorists." After all, that's exactly what happened with the Black Lives Matter protests over the past couple years. 
 
 The media reacted to black protesters over the past few years in a very different way 
 
 Behind these complaints is the media's very different reaction over the past few years to Black Lives Matter demonstrators protesting racial disparities in the criminal justice system and, specifically, police use of force. Those protests led media outlets not just to cover the demonstrations as wholly violent, but to suggest that the protests led to a wave of crime and violence in 2015. 
 
 For one, there were several instances in which victims of police shootings and Black Lives Matter protesters — even largely peaceful ones — were called thugs or other racially charged language. This is a problem that CNN, the New York Times, and Fox News all ran into. 
 
 But it went further. After a police officer was shot and killed in Texas, investigators in the case specifically said they had no idea what the motive of the shooter was. But that didn't stop Fox News from repeatedly pinning the blame on Black Lives Matter protesters, whom pundits blamed for fostering distrust and even hatred toward police: Fox News's Elisabeth Hasselbeck wondered aloud on air why Black Lives Matter isn't considered a "hate group." Bill O'Reilly was more blunt, concluding the movement was indeed a "hate group." And Megyn Kelly characterized the movement as violent and anti-police in another segment. 
 
 This continued to be a popular talking point among some news outlets, with the New York Post and Fox News repeatedly referencing a "war on cops." But with 2015 over, the data shows that the year was one of the safest years to be a police officer, with on-duty deaths of cops near historic lows and falling compared with 2014. 
 
 News outlets suggested that Black Lives Matter led to not just more violence against police but more violence in general. The New York Times, CNN, USA Today, and NPR ran stories about a supposed increase in murders and crimes in 2015, usually suggesting that protests against police were one factor. In a reference to the original Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Missouri, this became known as the "Ferguson effect" — the idea that protests against police had demoralized police and emboldened criminals, leading to more crime. 
 
 While murder rates are significantly up in some US cities, crime is not. Throughout the year, criminologists also repeatedly cautioned that there's no evidence of a nationwide wave of violence; they've also said that there's no evidence that the Black Lives Matter protests have anything to do with a potential rise in violence. But that didn't stop the widespread media narratives of a "Ferguson effect." 
 
 Asked about the discrepancies, CNN law enforcement analyst Art Roderick suggested that the differences make sense because the Oregon protesters are in a largely empty rural area and "they're not destroying property, they're not looting anything." 
 
 But, while the Baltimore and Ferguson protests resulted in some rioting, the overwhelming majority of Black Lives Matter protests have been peaceful. And Black Lives Matter protesters never showed up to a rally with guns and vowed to take over a government building "for years" with the threat of deadly force, as those in Oregon have vowed. 
 
 As some people pointed out on social media, it's hard to imagine news outlets viewing an armed protest as peaceful if their racial, ethnic, or religious identity were different. 
 
 @AP When white people with guns takeover a federal building and threaten the lives of fed employees, it's a peaceful protest. — GoBrooklyn (@GoBrooklyn) January 3, 2016 
 
 Similar media standards seem to apply to Muslim Americans. After a terrorist attack, pundits are quick to suggest that the entire Muslim community should apologize for the tragedy — as if every Muslim is in someway culpable for it. (In a particularly egregious example, CNN anchor Don Lemon asked Muslim-American human rights lawyer Arsalan Iftikhar if he supports ISIS, drawing a clearly baffled Iftikhar to ask, as Lemon nodded, "Wait, did you just ask if I support ISIS?") But there are no comparable cries demanding that all white people apologize for the militiamen in Oregon. 
 
 To be clear, it's not that critics necessarily think the Oregon militiamen should be subjected to the same wild, unfounded accusations as black or Muslim people. The complaint, instead, is that the media seems to be quick to treat minority groups as violent, while giving a predominantly white group a pass even when it's heavily armed. 
 
 The public (and media) really do hold racial biases, even if they don't know it 
 
 Underlying the accusations of skewed reporting toward the media is what's known as "implicit bias," or subconscious prejudices that can change how we approach and treat people of a different race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation. Researchers have shown that this phenomenon is real time and time again. 
 
 As part of a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2014, researchers studied 176 mostly white, male police officers, and tested them to see if they held an unconscious "dehumanization bias" against black people by having them match photos of people with photos of big cats or apes. Researchers found that officers commonly dehumanized black people, and those who did were most likely to be the ones who had a record of using force on black children in custody. 
 
 In the same study, researchers interviewed 264 mostly white, female college students and found that they tended to perceive black children ages 10 and older as "significantly less innocent" than their white counterparts. 
 
 "Children in most societies are considered to be in a distinct group with characteristics such as innocence and the need for protection," Phillip Goff, a UCLA researcher and author of the study, said in a statement. "Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent." 
 
 Other research suggests there can be superhumanization bias at work, as well, with white people more likely to associate paranormal or magical powers with black people than with other white people. And the more they associate magical powers with black people, the less likely they are to believe black people feel pain. 
 
 Subconscious racial biases are worrying because they may contribute to greater use of force by police. Studies show, for example, that officers are quicker to shoot black suspects in video game simulations. Josh Correll, a University of Colorado Boulder psychology professor who conducted the research, said it's possible the bias could lead to even more skewed outcomes in the field. "In the very situation in which [officers] most need their training," he said, "we have some reason to believe that their training will be most likely to fail them." 
 
 The fact these biases exist is at the very least something media outlets and pundits should be aware about in their reporting. Because the fact is such biases could be coloring how we approach these stories, even if we like to think that's not true. 
 
 Watch: Race isn't biologically real ||||| Before his death, Osama bin Laden boldly commanded his network to organize special cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack the aircraft of President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus. 
 
 “The reason for concentrating on them,” the al-Qaeda leader explained to his top lieutenant, “is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency. . . . Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour . . . and killing him would alter the war’s path” in Afghanistan. 
 
 Administration officials said Friday that the Obama-Petraeus plot was never a serious threat. 
 
 The scheme is described in one of the documents taken from bin Laden’s compound by U.S. forces on May 2, the night he was killed. I was given an exclusive look at some of these remarkable documents by a senior administration official. They have been declassified and will be available soon to the public in their original Arabic texts and translations. 
 
 The man bin Laden hoped would carry out the attacks on Obama and Petraeus was the Pakistani terrorist Ilyas Kashmiri. “Please ask brother Ilyas to send me the steps he has taken into that work,” bin Laden wrote to his top lieutenant, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman. A month after bin Laden’s death, Kashmiri was killed in a U.S. drone attack. 
 
 The plot to target Obama was probably bluster, since al-Qaeda apparently lacked the weapons to shoot down U.S. aircraft. But it’s a chilling reminder that even when he was embattled and in hiding, bin Laden still dreamed of pulling off another spectacular terror attack against the United States. 
 
 The terrorist leader urged in a 48-page directive to Atiyah to focus “every effort that could be spent on attacks in America,” instead of operations within Muslim nations. He told Atiyah to “ask the brothers in all regions if they have a brother . . . who can operate in the U.S. [He should be able to] live there, or it should be easy for him to travel there.” 
 
 U.S. analysts don’t see evidence that these plots have materialized. “The organization lacks the ability to plan, organize and execute complex, catastrophic attacks, but the threat persists,” says a senior administration analyst who has carefully reviewed the documents. 
 
 The bin Laden who emerges from these communications is a terrorist CEO in an isolated compound, brooding that his organization has ruined its reputation by killing too many Muslims in its jihad against America. He writes of the many departed “brothers” who have been lost to U.S. drone attacks. But he’s far from the battlefield himself in his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he seems to spend considerable time watching television. 
 
 The garbled syntax of bin Laden’s communications may result from their being dictated to several of his wives, according to the U.S. analyst. And his rambling laundry list of recommendations illustrates the problems of communicating with subordinates when it could take several months to receive an answer. The al-Qaeda leader had a “great fear of irrelevance,” the analyst believes. 
 
 Because of constant harassment and communications difficulties in Pakistan’s tribal areas, bin Laden encouraged al-Qaeda leaders to leave north and south Waziristan for more distant and remote locations. 
 
 Bin Laden had an unlikely managerial focus, for such a notorious terrorist. He discusses the need for “deputy emirs” and “acting emirs” to run regional operations when the local boss is away, and he suggests that emirs should serve two-year terms and write an “annual report to be sent to the central group detailing the local situation.” He allowed a relatively frank exchange with his subordinates, who voiced criticisms about the organization’s errors. 
 
 Though open to internal debate, bin Laden and his aides had rigid views about Muslim theology. Atiyah sent his leader a strident letter in June 2009 detailing what he saw as doctrinal errors among other jihadists. 
 
 Bin Laden’s biggest concern was al-Qaeda’s media image among Muslims. He worried that it was so tarnished that, in a draft letter probably intended for Atiyah, he argued that the organization should find a new name. 
 
 The al-Qaeda brand had become a problem, bin Laden explained, because Obama administration officials “have largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims,” and instead promoted a war against al-Qaeda. The organization’s full name was “Qaeda al-Jihad,” bin Laden noted, but in its shorthand version, “this name reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them.” He proposed 10 alternatives “that would not easily be shortened to a word that does not represent us.” His first recommendation was “Taifat al-tawhid wal-jihad,” or Monotheism and Jihad Group. 
 
 Bin Laden ruminated about “mistakes” and “miscalculations” by affiliates in Iraq and elsewhere that had killed Muslims, even in mosques. He told Atiyah to warn every emir, or regional leader, to avoid these “unnecessary civilian casualties,” which were hurting the organization. 
 
 “Making these mistakes is a great issue,” he stressed, arguing that spilling “Muslim blood” had resulted in “the alienation of most of the nation [of Islam] from the [Mujaheddin].” Local al-Qaeda leaders should “apologize and be held responsible for what happened.” 
 
 Bin Laden also criticized subordinates for linking their operations to local grievances rather than the overarching Muslim cause of Palestine. He chided his affiliate in Yemen for saying an operation was a response to U.S. bombing there. He even scolded the organizers of the spectacular December 2009 suicide attack on the CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, for describing it as revenge for the killing of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. “It was necessary to discuss Palestine first,” lectured bin Laden. 
 
 Bin Laden’s focus on attacking the U.S. homeland led to sharp disagreements with his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who favored easier and more opportunistic attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas. 
 
 Bin Laden told Atiyah that al-Qaeda’s best chance for establishing an Islamic state was Yemen, which he described as the “launching point” for attacks on the Persian Gulf oil states. “Control of these nations means control of the world,” he wrote. But he worried that the push in Yemen would come too soon, and he advised his colleagues to wait three years, if necessary, before making a decisive move. By fighting too hard in Syria in the early 1980s, he noted, the Muslim Brotherhood “lost a generation of men.” 
 
 Bin Laden and his aides hoped for big terrorist operations to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. They also had elaborate media plans. Adam Gadahn, a U.S.-born media adviser, even discussed in a message to his boss what would be the best television outlets for a bin Laden anniversary video. 
 
 “It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News let her die in her anger,” Gadahn wrote. At another point, he said of the networks: “From a professional point of view, they are all on one level — except [Fox News] channel, which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks objectivity, too.” 
 
 What an unintended boost for Fox, which can now boast that it is al-Qaeda’s least favorite network. 
 
 davidignatius@washpost.com
– An armed group has taken over a federal building in Oregon, and leaders say they're willing to use force to defend themselves if the feds move in. It's getting news coverage, of course, but a post at Vox makes the case that coverage is nowhere near as intense as it would be if this group were largely Muslim or black instead of mostly white. "Media outlets don't seem to consider this an alarming story, instead treating it by and large as a peaceful protest," writes German Lopez. He notes that after terrorists attacks, pundits often ask the Muslim community at large to denounce them, "but there are no comparable cries demanding that all white people apologize for the militiamen." It's a case of "implicit bias," writes Lopez, or "subconscious prejudices that can change how we approach and treat people of a different race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation." It's important that media outlets be aware of the problem, he adds, because the resulting coverage can skew how stories are perceived. Not that everyone's taking the threat all that seriously: A Daily Beast headline refers to "Wingnut Woodstock," while al Jazeera notes that the Internet seems to have settled on the name "Y'all Qaeda" to describe the group. Click to read Lopez's full post.