And I think this is a great example of what we are talking about here. I was just about to post something like this the other day (seriously) but ran out of time/took a nap.
But seriously, as The BRAD BLOG notes, the death of the alleged anthrax killer has been covered without anyone noting the political bent of the attacks. Two of those letters were sent to prominent liberals (Daschle and Leahy in the Senate), a fact that most coverage of the recent suicide failed to mention.
And to be fair, there is a great possibility that this guy was as unhinged as the latest church shooter, and that his "political" was actually "crazy."
But here is the kicker. You tell me (honestly) if the victims had been conservative, and the alleged killer were percieved to be liberal--don't you think that would have led every broadcast and been in every headline? When the media repeats McCain talking points about Obama being too arrogant (because McCain is humble because he repeats "my friends" instead of "um?") don't you think even the so-called liberals in the media would have led off with, "some say that the attacks were politically motivated by liberal hatred of conservative blah blah?"
I think absolutely they all would have. The church shootings in Colorado were explained exactly that way. Columbine was explained that way. But the only time I can remember any discussion of right wing hatred was the OKC bombing. And even that became a defensive effort on the behalf of Limbaugh and his drones.
But now, with a clear opportunity to talk about the political bias of the alleged murderer, and the media omits the question?
12 comments:
I am probably going to regret this, but here goes.
You tell me (honestly) if the victims had been conservative, and the alleged killer were percieved to be liberal--don't you think that would have led every broadcast and been in every headline?
I honestly don't know. My gut says no, but that is just a feeling. I have no evidence to base it on. I would say that not a week goes by where some conservative poster on some forum or blog points out some story and says the opposite...if that person had been a conservative, they would have been treated far differently.
Columbine was explained that way.
How was Columbine explained? IIRC, there was tons of blame...gun laws, video games, psychotropic medication, bullies, etc. I don't recall much of a political motivation.
I think you are right about Columbine. Tom Delay blamed it on liberals and Newt Gingrich blamed similar crimes on liberals.
But on this, I am not convinced at all that if the situation were reversed the media would not be running with it. Had they even acknowledged some possible political motivations, I might agree with you. But they have ignored it completely.
What bearing does it have that some conservatives complain about liberal bias? Just asking, mind you, not being snippy. But it doesn't really relate to this particular case. I know you still believe the media is liberal--and you are in a large group of people as far as I can tell--but just imagine if the anthrax killer was found to have been a fan of Olbermann and had books by Michael Moore, and (running out of liberal equivalents of Ann Coulter and Billo) Paul Krugman. Are you really saying that the media would not have noted that? Especially if the targets had been conservative senators?
But on this, I am not convinced at all that if the situation were reversed the media would not be running with it. Had they even acknowledged some possible political motivations, I might agree with you. But they have ignored it completely.
Possibly, but I also don't think it is that big of a story. It was when it happened, but we are now 6+ years removed from the events.
What bearing does it have that some conservatives complain about liberal bias?
I think it is having a much smaller impact as time goes by. Back when there were relatively few media putlets, it was a bigger deal, but people now have more choices when it comes to getting their news. I also think that some media outlets are making a bigger effort to not appear biased and there are certainly more poeple that will call them on it if they show bias.
As I have said before, I don't think the bias is a bad as some conservatives say it is and I also think it depends entirely on the issue. It also depends on the news source. I fully expect pundits like Billo, Hannity and Olberman to show bias. That is who they are and what they are paid to do.
Not that big of a story? I fear you are right, but beg to differ. This was part of the story used to go to war. A former Fbi guy just reported that when the FBI tried to tell the White House that this was not Middle Eastern terrorists, the Bush people exploded. This had to be Iraq, and they used that to justify the war effort. I remember at the time wondering why no one talked about the targets and noted that they weren't the "tough guys on terror" that a terrorist might actually target. They were the liberals (or as liberal as we get in the Senate).
I don't know who said this, but I am reminded of someone saying that you didn't have to censor the news, just delay it. Bush and his people have done a good job of running out the clock and betting that the American people don't really give a shit about what really happened. I fear they are correct.
Not that big of a story? I fear you are right, but beg to differ. This was part of the story used to go to war.
Well, we all know by now that there was plenty of other faulty data being used to sell the war to the rest of us, so this is just one of many.
I remember the experts saying it was terrorist groups that were behind the anthrax. Ironically, following the Beltway sniper attacks, eyewitnesses said the shooter was, "a crazy white guy armed with an AK-47, driving about in a boxy white van." The profilers said it was a middle aged white guy that was likely a member of a white supramacist group. I am not paranoid to believe there was an agenda to these statements, but it does show how bad it is to rush this information out when you don't have ll the facts.
Well, we all know by now that there was plenty of other faulty data being used to sell the war to the rest of us, so this is just one of many.
Agreed. I didn't say, or didn't mean to say this was the only thing. Certainly only one of many.
Good point about the sniper. I won't deny that white conservative gun owners get their share of grief, but will reiterate that if this anthrax guy was a Countdown or Daily Show fan, we would have heard about that by now.
I think your example is a good one of lazy media. My example is one of both lazy media and one cowed by conservative mantra's about "liberal media."
You guys might need to tune up your tinfoil -- I think some rays may be seeping through if you accept the premise of this guy's sudden suicide. There are some awfully odd details. Just sayin'.
Only the highest quality, made in the USA, tinfoil goes into my hats.
Good point about the sniper. I won't deny that white conservative gun owners get their share of grief, but will reiterate that if this anthrax guy was a Countdown or Daily Show fan, we would have heard about that by now.
I was annoyed by some of the coverage, such as the reporters referring to a .223 round as some high powered, sniper round. I was more annoyed at their sheer laziness. You may be right about the anthrax guy. I just am not sure.
Tinfoil emits radiation from secret government nuclear research, and wearing it will give you cancer and rabies! My conspiracy hats are made from the finest Leightonium.
I think the .223 "high-powered sniper round" was less laziness and more dramatization. When I lived in SoCal, the local media would always, always exaggerate the effect of wildfires, and their numbers for homes destroyed and damaged didn't match the ones given by the firefighters' media liaisons. If a detail can be stretched into something exciting to provide a career boost for struggling local anchors and newswriters, it will be.
I think the .223 "high-powered sniper round" was less laziness and more dramatization.
Drama certainly plays a role. "High powered sniper round" sounds much more scary than "varmint round." That being said, I see plenty of stories with things like, "semi-automatic revolvers" (yes, they have been made, but they are pretty obscure and extremely rare) and holding up a semi-auto rifle and calling it a machine gun. Most reporters admit they don't know much about fireamrs, but they don't seem very interested in getting their stories right. Besides, only gun nuts will complain.
holding up a semi-auto rifle and calling it a machine gun Seemed to have heard that somewhere before...hmmm...
Maybe you are thinking of aluminum tubes?
Post a Comment