Toxic Rhetoric, Tragic Shooting
We're never really going to be able to draw a direct line of blame between the toxic, inflamed anti-government rhetoric that characterizes today's political discourse to the tragic shooting rampage that took place in Arizona on Saturday, as much as many people would like. By all accounts the shooter was a lone nut who could have been set off by almost anything, and just happened to focus his ire on Congresswoman Gabby Gifford.
However, did anyone not think that, given today's scorched earth political discourse on talk radio and other outlets, that something like this was eventually going to happen? There are fragile minds out there, and when you start talking about "targeting" political enemies, or "stopping at nothing" to vanquish political opponents, someone is bound to take such words literally. Even Gifford herself, talking about Sarah Palin's famous map with gun-sight cross-hairs above targeted congressional districts, said that such words and actions have consequences.
So even if Jared Loughner didn't have pin-ups of Sarah Palin in his bedroom, or a membership card in the Arizona Tea Party, the result might be the same. I have a feeling that for awhile at least politicians and commentators are going to tone down the violent rhetoric. You won't hear Palin, or anyone else, saying, "Don't retreat, instead reload," without being widely condemned, and rightly so. As John Stewart said, a return to rational political discourse will make people like Loughner easier to spot. We'll be able to tell the truly dangerously demented from the merely dumb.
MEDIA MISTAKES: Although National Public Radio has issued an apology for its premature and widely circulated announcement that Congresswoman Gifford had died from her wounds, it still doesn't explain how this happened. NPR seems to be taking the attitude that since they had "two governmental sources," including one in the local sheriff's office, who told the reporters that she had died, the mistake was understandable. One editor even told me that given the sources, he would have done the same thing. Really? These sources obviously had no idea what they were talking about. Were they even in a position to know what's going on at the hospital, or were they just speculating? How does the press evaluate the reliability of these sources? And since her husband (who heard that Gifford had died from media reports ) hadn't been told of her "death" by any official channel, wouldn't it have been prudent of NPR and all the other media outlets who repeated it to simply wait?
Saying "our sources were solid but the story was wrong" is like saying the operation was a success but the patient died. There needs to be a bit more self-analysis on the media's part to fully understand what happened here. It's like asking a woman if she's pregnant. I've learned the hard way that unless I can actually see the fetus coming out of her body, I don't ask. The media need to follow a similar rule.
However, did anyone not think that, given today's scorched earth political discourse on talk radio and other outlets, that something like this was eventually going to happen? There are fragile minds out there, and when you start talking about "targeting" political enemies, or "stopping at nothing" to vanquish political opponents, someone is bound to take such words literally. Even Gifford herself, talking about Sarah Palin's famous map with gun-sight cross-hairs above targeted congressional districts, said that such words and actions have consequences.
So even if Jared Loughner didn't have pin-ups of Sarah Palin in his bedroom, or a membership card in the Arizona Tea Party, the result might be the same. I have a feeling that for awhile at least politicians and commentators are going to tone down the violent rhetoric. You won't hear Palin, or anyone else, saying, "Don't retreat, instead reload," without being widely condemned, and rightly so. As John Stewart said, a return to rational political discourse will make people like Loughner easier to spot. We'll be able to tell the truly dangerously demented from the merely dumb.
MEDIA MISTAKES: Although National Public Radio has issued an apology for its premature and widely circulated announcement that Congresswoman Gifford had died from her wounds, it still doesn't explain how this happened. NPR seems to be taking the attitude that since they had "two governmental sources," including one in the local sheriff's office, who told the reporters that she had died, the mistake was understandable. One editor even told me that given the sources, he would have done the same thing. Really? These sources obviously had no idea what they were talking about. Were they even in a position to know what's going on at the hospital, or were they just speculating? How does the press evaluate the reliability of these sources? And since her husband (who heard that Gifford had died from media reports ) hadn't been told of her "death" by any official channel, wouldn't it have been prudent of NPR and all the other media outlets who repeated it to simply wait?
Saying "our sources were solid but the story was wrong" is like saying the operation was a success but the patient died. There needs to be a bit more self-analysis on the media's part to fully understand what happened here. It's like asking a woman if she's pregnant. I've learned the hard way that unless I can actually see the fetus coming out of her body, I don't ask. The media need to follow a similar rule.
Comments