David Brooks is correct in his overall analysis of the media smear against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement:
All of this evidence, which is easily accessible on the Internet, points to the possibility that Loughner may be suffering from a mental illness like schizophrenia….
In short, the evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.
Yet the early coverage and commentary of the Tucson massacre suppressed this evidence. The coverage and commentary shifted to an entirely different explanation: Loughner unleashed his rampage because he was incited by the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party, the anti-immigrant movement and Sarah Palin.
Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted, with former Senator Gary Hart flatly stating that the killings were the result of angry political rhetoric. Keith Olbermann demanded a Palin repudiation and the founder of the Daily Kos wrote on Twitter: “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Others argued that the killing was fostered by a political climate of hate.
These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness.
Brooks names names, but not all names. Among the names missing from Brooks’ list of those seeking to smear Palin and the Tea Parties are The Board of Editors of The New York Times and fellow NY Times columnist Paul Krugman.
The New York Times was at the forefront of the attempt to hang the Tucson shooting around the necks of conservatives, Tea Parties and Sarah Palin.
Brooks should have manned-up and named names at The New York Times.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
He was too busy admiring the sharp creases in their trousers.
How disappointing. Howard Fineman enters the waters at FeverSwamp Spa.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/11/fineman_palin_darned_well_knows_what_shes_doing_with_crosshairs.html
Once again, Tea Party is NOT anti-immigrant. My parents were immigrants. LEGAL immigrants. We just want our borders secured and for our citizenry to be here LEGALLY. Repeat after me Brooks: "ILLEGAL immigrants". Keep repeating it until it becomes automatic.
That's how our team root out the cowans and eavesdroppers. They fail the shibboleth test.
Where were the voices for Gun Control after the Fort Hood shootings? Soldiers unable to carry murdered like sitting ducks and we are told not to jump to conclusions because the shooter was Muslim, a group responsible for 3000+ deaths in this country in the last decade. Yet these same ones calling for reason after Fort Hood are demonizing the Tea Party and not afraid to jump to conclusions about a group with no documented murders on our soil. Its amazing how low they will stoop.
From the man whose claim to fame is admiring Obama's pant creases:
"The good news is that there were a few skeptics, even during the height of the mania: Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast, James Fallows of The Atlantic and Jonathan Chait of The New Republic. The other good news is that the mainstream media usually recovers from its hysterias and tries belatedly to get the story right."
Unless Fallows is a conservative commentator (I'm not familar with his writings), Brooks gives no credit to conservatives for trying to set the record straight. Then he let's the culprits off the hook by saying they usually get it right in the end, so let's all just forgive them and pretend the damage their irresponsible reporting caused doesn't matter.
Craig S. Miller said…
That's because unlike the Tea Party, Muslim extremists do not engage in hate speech and vitriolic ranting.
Now that crosshairs are a no-no on political maps, what symbol should be used to show targeted … oops, I mean, areas of special interest in political campaigns, oops, I mean, friendly electoral contests? Flowers? Maybe a daisy on a district? Oh no. That might possibly conjure up images of a funeral and incite some on the fringe. Cuddly little Teddy Bears? Nah … could be construed by many troubled, potential assasins as Palin Polar Bear Manchurian Code acting on their subconscious Tea Party desires to kill and maim.
So many potentially dangerous signals …
BTW, both "The Hill" and "Politico" are running stories with headlines saying Pawlenty is taking a jab at Palin. From "The Hill", the Pawlenty money quote is, "It wouldn't have been my style to put the crosshairs on there, but there's no reason to believe it had anything to do with this mentally unstable person's rage, Pawlenty said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Gee, after a non-stop, hysterical media frenzy in which the media effectively made Palin an accessory to murder for using a symbol on a political strategy map ten months ago, the media thinks it's both "news" and a "jab" at Palin when Pawlenty had the good sense to say he would not have used the same symbol.
But hey, why not keep the story alive and get more page views and links to bump your advertising income.
Corrupt. Greedy. Shameless.
I think MSM and the public needs to revisit this clip for a refresher on the Left's established 'vitriol' and 'rhetoric' that gave these guys the idea that 'hanging Palin' is both artistic and politically fashionable.
'Hanging Sarah Palin Effigy' Clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKaKjkMBGXs&NR;=1
The shooter (I refuse to dignify him by mentioning his name) was motivated by nothing more nor less than the voices in his head, none of whom made the slightest iota of sense. The calumny being heaped upon the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh is inappropriate and factually deficient. Rep. Giffords was targeted by this lunatic murderer back in 2007 BEFORE Sarah Palin was widely known and long before the Tea Party.
I will grant you that you can write a livelier piece without resorting to facts, but that isn't journalism as I was taught it in college!
Now that more and more information on this troubled young man comes to light, the MSM seems to be backing away from discussing it. I just caught the first bit of "The Daily Show" with that ultra-smart Jon Stewart and he stated that "there is no need to go over what has taken place in Arizona". Typical….can't dilute the lie with fact now, can we? I feel that this horrible tragedy has put the last nail in the coffin for the MSM. Bad for us, though….watch our freedom of speech and press erode because of this. God help our nation.