Different treatment for different types of terrorism

Why are there differences in media coverage when terror and violence is committed by a Muslim radical vs a Right-Wing Conservative Usually-Christian radical? Why does the former draw calls from politicians and the press for tolerance and avoiding broad brushes, and the latter lectures about inflammatory language and intolerance?

Simple. Because when some white right-wing lunatic blows up a building or shoots up a gathering or does something else of the sort, nobody goes around physically attacking whites.  Nobody seriously suggests deporting them, or outlawing them, or reeducating them, or passing laws that treat them differently from others. Nobody suggests the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment (or the Second, for that matter) doesn't apply to them.

And on those rare occasions when someone does stupidly overreach toward the Right and/or Christians with a broad brush (cf. that US Army Reserve PPT I mentioned yesterday), the Right is there in the forefront slapping down any such suggestion (but always only about the groups they represent or like or aren't scared of — if it's about Muslims, well, then, it's still more proof that We Have To Do Something About Their Typ ).

I'll speak up whenever I see someone being grouped unfairly with violent extremists. But if it seems like the responses to different classes of people being violently extreme are asymmetric, that's because there's plenty of asymmetry going on in the other direction.