The ever-reasonable Tammy Bruce
It’s early yet, and in fairness, I can’t say for certain that all the conservative talk radio hosts will be echoing what I’ve heard today from two of them, but if someone offers you that bet, take it. I get to monitor the Right’s talkers when I’m driving around, which is too often, and I will usually get to sample the day’s rantings from Chis Plante, Laura Ingraham, Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin, and when my gag reflex is under control, Michael Savage. Except for Savage, who resides on his own, hateful planet, the others seem to operate off of common talking points, usually cribbed from the Drudge Report. Based on what I heard on Plante’s and Ingraham’s shows, today’s prime topic is yesterday’s shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, and specifically 1) how the media is downplaying it because a conservative group was the target, 2) how nobody is blaming inflammatory anti-conservative rhetoric for the shooting, in contrast to the media reaction to the Tuscon shooting and the recent massacre in the Sikh temple, and 3) how the media should be.
Fascinating.
When Arizona Congresswoman Gaby Giffords was wounded and others killed in Jared Lee Loughner’s crazed rampage, fair journalists and rightward commentators condemned the efforts by the likes of the New York Times, its columnist Paul Krugman, the gang at MSNBC and others to blame the shooting on supposed “extreme rhetoric” by such conservatives as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. They were correct to condemn them. The liberal attempts to tie a madman’s actions to conservative political speech was the ultimate cheap shot, logically indefensible and a transparent attempt to chill political debate unfriendly to liberal causes and leaders. This became obvious in the coming months, as various Democrats and liberal commentators did nothing to moderate their own provocative and violent rhetoric, making it quite clear that a double standard was in place, and the mainstream media was enforcing it.
The nonsense has been repeated at a lower volume in the wake of the Sikh temple mass murder this month. Earlier, ABC newsman Brian Ross attempted to link the Tea Party to the Aurora “Batman” shooting. Yes, the tactic of trying to blame the conduct of lunatics on political discourse from the Right is deceptive, dishonest, unfair, and an attempt to muzzle legitimate political speech. The conservative talk shows and media were and are correct to cry foul, and it is an indictment of the rest of the media that they don’t have more support.
Now, however, since an apparent left-wing nut carrying a Chic-fil-A bag attempted to shoot up a conservative lobbying group that opposes gay marriage, the conservative yakkers are demanding their own cheap shots:
Why isn’t the media making as big a story over a shooting when the target is a conservative group?, demanded DC conservative motor-mouth Chris Plante?
Well, Chris, I think the fact that nobody was actually killed has a lot to do with it.
And why aren’t the columnists and talking heads and liberal bloggers claiming that anti-conservative and hateful rhetoric from the likes of Rahm Emanuel and Chris Matthews didn’t set the alleged shooter on his murderous path?, asked Tammy Bruce, sitting in for vacationing host Laura Ingraham. (Having the hysterical Bruce take over for Ingraham is roughly equivalent to replacing Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” with Gallagher…but I digress.)
Well, because it’s unfair, illogical and stupid, as you have told us many times.
Because we know that these incidents ARE fueled by the hateful rhetoric of the Left, and it’s time we stopped letting the media pretend it isn’t!, said both Plante and Bruce, over and over and over again.
Wait…what?
After complaining bitterly about liberal, Democratic and media critics using unrelated violence from maniacs to vilify the Right, now conservative talk radio is outraged that the media isn’t doing the same outrageous thing to the LEFT? “This was terrible and unfair…now do it to the other guy!” What??
I know that Emerson said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but total and shameless inconsistency is the mark of a damaged mind. If it is wrong to tie conservative political speech to violent incidents, it is wrong to tie liberal political speech to violent incidents. If the conservative talk show hosts want to point out that the media doesn’t leap to condemn extreme rhetoric as a catalyst for violence when the shooters are liberals, fine, fair point: the news media is biased, and employ double standards. Arguing, however, that the media should implicate liberal political speech represents the depths of hypocrisy, and essentially validates an unethical political tactic. Plante and Bruce (and, I’m betting, Rush and the rest) are making it clear that tying adversaries to ugly and violent acts is only reprehensible in their eyes when the other side does it.
Wrong. It is reprehensible, period.
__________________________________________
Spark: Chris Plante, Tammy Bruce
Sources:
Graphic: Jefferson’s Wave
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Well said. Unethical practices should not be vindicated by anyone, regardless of who benefits from the unethical practice. What’s wrong is wrong!
I will mildly disagree with one aspect of this, because while I agree that the dudgeon is over the top, there IS a substantive difference. In both the Aurora and Arizona cases, the premise that the shootings were politically motivated was advanced before anything was known about the shooters. In the FRC case, I saw little to no such speculation early on – and active discussion centering on political orientation was triggered only AFTER it was learned that the shooter was an activist.
But I completely agree that the talkers are misrepresenting the idea that the media is either ignoring or obfuscating that point. The vast majority of news stories I’ve seen on the subject do provide that bit of background on him. And your point that the story is smaller than it might otherwise have been because no one died is squarely on point. That may or may not be a good thing, but given the way media works these days I’d say it was a completely fair observation. As is your point regarding demands that the media SHOULD implicate left-wing speech.
I have not been listening to the radio so I am responding solely on your post, context may be wrong.
“Now, however, since an apparent left-wing nut carrying a Chic-fil-A bag attempted to shoot up a conservative lobbying group that opposes gay marriage, the conservative yakkers are demanding their own cheap shots:
Why isn’t the media making as big a story over a shooting when the target is a conservative group?, demanded DC conservative motor-mouth Chris Plante?
Well, Chris, I think the fact that nobody was actually killed has a lot to do with it.
And why aren’t the columnists and talking heads and liberal bloggers claiming that anti-conservative and hateful rhetoric from the likes of Rahm Emanuel and Chris Matthews didn’t set the alleged shooter on his murderous path?, asked Tammy Bruce, sitting in for vacationing host Laura Ingraham. (Having the hysterical Bruce take over for Ingraham is roughly equivalent to replacing Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” with Gallagher…but I digress.)
We, because it’s unfair, illogical and stupid, as you have told us many times.”
The lack of anyone killed is a point but the potential was there and if I am getting the context correct their point is to illustrate that biased media is not rushing to judgment and condemning speech for being a catalyst for this guy’s action as they have done in the past because this does not fit their narrative.
“Because we know that these incidents ARE fueled by the hateful rhetoric of the Left, and it’s time we stopped letting the media pretend it isn’t!, said both Plante and Bruce, over and over and over again.
Wait…what?”
At this point they have lost their minds and are squarely in the realm of partisan hacks.
I am with you in condemning any of them that blame speech for inciting this guy.
Both went further, in fact. Plante and Bruce, who are on different stations at the asme time, argued that while conservatives never resort to violence against those they disagree with, liberals do—thus conservative rhetoric isn’t dangerous, but liberal rhetoric can and has sparked violence.
I kid you not.
Ok they not only are partisan hacks but also intellectually dishonest.
I agree that when a madman tries to blow up a building because the pink eggplant told him to, and the media tries to tie politics to it, that is reprehensible. What, however, of the man who does it for purely political reasons – like when James Lee held the Discovery Communications building hostage? Shouldn’t a politically motivated act of terror be billed as such?
While the Martin/Zimmerman spectacle has taught many people to hold their tounges until facts start coming out, the (very few) facts that have come out so far seem to indicate that this was motivated by LGBT extremism on the gunman’s part. While there will be those that then tie that to LGBT groups as a whole, they are clearly wrong to do so. What I find more distressing is the media’s quickness to remind everyone that this happened to a ‘hate group’ – dangerously close in many cases to excusing the behavior. ‘Hey, no one died, and they’re a bunch of haters, anyway!’
Sure, call it like it is. John Wilkes Booth was a Southern sympathizer, but what Southern sympathizers wrote and said didn’t make him pull the trigger.
I haven’t read any legitimate media reports calling the Family Research Council a hate group. It isn’t, and it wouldn’t justify shooting its staff even if it were.
The Huffington Post mentioned it that afternoon, although the timing of it suggests they were just going for the shot, rather than reacting to the event. CNN pointed it out this morning. Personally, I saw wave after wave of it on the social media sites the other week during the Chick-fil-a brouhaha – it was one of the supposed reasons why the whole thing was more than just lashing out at an opinion – they were standing against hate, because Chick-fil-a donated to the FRC blackguards.
I wouldn’t even mind if we adopted a go-to stance of ‘lone gunman’ for the most part. What I see them complaining (poorly) about here is that the baseline seems to be “Right-wing terrorist? Tea party’s fault. Lone nutjob? Tea party’s fault. Left-wing terrorist? Well, he’s off his rocker – and the others on the left can’t be held responsible for one nutjob, now can they?’
No, they can’t.
The Southern Poverty Law Center defends the “hate group” designation for FRC here.
I could make a similar case that SPLC is a hate group. Holding that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a hateful position; it is a traditional position. Calling it hate is just a way to marginalize an opponent. Until a group advocates violence, I think calling it—or the the FRC—a hate group is a stretch. Based on some of the comments by Maxine Waters and others, the Democratic Party could be called a hate group.
None of which justifies shooting it up.
Jack, as the link I provided explicitly says, they DON’T call groups hate groups just because they oppose gay marriage. (If they did, they’d surely list NOM, which is far more prominent on the gay marriage issue.) I don’t understand why you’d make that argument when it’s clearly false.
“The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage.”
Just last week, someone from the FRC suggested that what’s needed is a new “underground railroad” to “rescue” (i.e., kidnap) children being raised by gay parents. Advocating kidnapping may not be advocating violence, per se — one can imagine a non-violent kidnapping, I suppose — but it comes close. They can reasonably be called a hate group – and, contrary to what you’ve falsely claimed, I don’t believe you can find a single representative of the SPLC which has said anything nearly as nasty as calling for children to be kidnapped.
1. I object to the term “hate group” when it is applied to any groups stating the opinion and policy preferences of its members. The label is an effort to chill speech and demonize associations of Americans. You can say they are wrong.
2. No one can say they “knowingly” spread “lies.” I have debated with these people enough to know that they are not lying according to the definition of the word, but only by the deceptive use employed by partisans. I have no doubt that they believe what they say, because that’s how they read the Bible, which is the Word of God and doesn’t lie.
3. So now “someone” from a groups saying something stupid makes the group a hate group? Then I am right: the Democratic Party is a hate group, isn’t it. I don’t play link wars, but I know there are quotes out there from various Democrats about killing (metaphorically, of course) conservatives in various ways.
4. They can’t reasonably be called a hate group because it’s unreasonable to label a group engaged in constitutionally protected, non-violent speech a hate group, simply because you disagree with them. The SPLC hates God and religious people. If I “list” them as a hate group by my broad definition, which has as much legitimacy as their’s, does that make them a hate group?
5. All of which is silly. The Family Research Council is a conservative advocacy group that thinks that it is reasonable to discriminate against gays because it believes, sincerely, that gays are sick perverts out to molest children and destroy society. They, like Rick Santorum, hold that they do not “hate” gays, and I believe them, although that and 20 cents will get you a ride on the subway, as my Dad liked to say. So what? Individuals don’t have a right to support them? Individuals who support them should be run out of town and not allowed to make a living? Individuals who work for such groups should be shot? What is the argument you want to make?
0. Jack, you said that the SPLC labels groups “hate groups” for opposing same-sex marriage. That was not true, and now it’s been pointed out to you that it’s not true. You should have the integrity to acknowledge that.
Besides, conflating the FRC with opposition to same-sex marriage is, frankly, an insult to millions of ordinary Americans who would never sign on to the FRC’s extreme views but do oppose gay marriage.
1. Yes, I know; poor, poor conservatives, having their rights violated because the Big Bad Mean SPLC called them a “hate group.” Why do so many conservatives think that they have a right to freedom from harsh criticism?
The FRC has every right to say whatever hateful things they want; they do not have a right to be free from criticism for what they say, even if the criticism rightfully tags them as a hate group.
2. Fair point regarding “knowingly.”
3. I completely screwed up. The “someone” was Bryan Fischer, who is the spokesman for the American Family Association; I misremembered and thought he worked for FRC.
(Damn! I hate getting a fact wrong! Teach me to be too lazy to google a point.)
4. I don’t think you can reasonably claim that the SPLC hates God and religious people. The SPLC’s claims are based on many specific quotes in which the FRC has said vicious things about gay people as a class. In contrast, although certainly some individuals the SPLC criticize are religious, to my knowledge the SPLC has never criticized religious people as a class, nor have they ever criticized God.
So the difference is that the SPLC’s claims are based on facts, whereas you’re just making stuff up, without the slightest factual basis.
5. A sincere belief can still be a hateful belief. My blog was recently criticized on Stormfront’s website (a Nazi group), and people are submitting comments like “you **** JEw, you’re Jewish filth,” etc.. I don’t doubt that the comment-writer sincerely believes that Jews like me are filth, but that doesn’t mean his comment wasn’t hateful.
A sincere belief that gay people are pedophiles, etc., is a hateful belief. A group that advocates for those beliefs can be called a hate group.
Groups that act violently are not just hate groups, but terrorists. I think your definition conflates “hate group” and “terrorist group,” but the two terms actually have different meanings.
Reasonable people can disagree about what a hate group is, of course.
I don’t believe any of those awful things, and regularly argue the opposite when it comes up. (For instance, this week on another blog I’ve been arguing that although Professor Mark Regnerus created a scientifically ludicrous anti-gay study, it would be morally wrong for the University of Texas to fire or discipline him for that.)
My point is that there’s no right for right-wing groups to be spared from harsh criticism, nor is anyone ethically obligated to not call a hate group a hate group, or to not call a bigot a bigot. (I do think there’s an ethical obligation to practice “due diligence” before making such a claim, as the SPRC has done, and not to make such claims haphazardly or lightly.)
Barry: Here you go…
0. Jack, you said that the SPLC labels groups “hate groups” for opposing same-sex marriage. That was not true, and now it’s been pointed out to you that it’s not true. You should have the integrity to acknowledge that.
I do acknowledge that. I also think that they are labeled a hate group in part because that’s a cheap way to marginalize a group that opposes same sex marriage.
Besides, conflating the FRC with opposition to same-sex marriage is, frankly, an insult to millions of ordinary Americans who would never sign on to the FRC’s extreme views but do oppose gay marriage.
Do you really hold that an American can’t support a group for its lobbying position in support of something the supporter believes in without also supporting all its opinions and positions? I reject that, and it flies in the face of, for example, the supporters of Planned Parenthood who say the government should continue to support it with tax payer dollars because abortion is just one of the things it does. If I was against same sex marriage and wanted to support a group that effectively lobbied against it (I’m not and don’t), I might give to a group whose other positions or even whose motivation I objected to. Your “insult” rhetoric is over the top.
1. Yes, I know; poor, poor conservatives, having their rights violated because the Big Bad Mean SPLC called them a “hate group.” Why do so many conservatives think that they have a right to freedom from harsh criticism?
The FRC has every right to say whatever hateful things they want; they do not have a right to be free from criticism for what they say, even if the criticism rightfully tags them as a hate group.
“Hate group” isn’t legitimate criticism, it is denigration and labelling in the McCarthy sense, suggesting opinions that should not be accorded Constitutional protection. Like Commie, racist, sexist and homophobe. Unless we are talking about the Klan or the American Nazis. The term isn’t an argument, it’s a weapon.
2. Fair point regarding “knowingly.”
(I knew you would agree with that one.)
3. I completely screwed up. The “someone” was Bryan Fischer, who is the spokesman for the American Family Association; I misremembered and thought he worked for FRC.
(Damn! I hate getting a fact wrong! Teach me to be too lazy to google a point.)
I can’t get all those groups with “family” in them straight myself. And I’m often too lazy (rushed! rushed!) to google. You have an official dispensation.
4. I don’t think you can reasonably claim that the SPLC hates God and religious people. The SPLC’s claims are based on many specific quotes in which the FRC has said vicious things about gay people as a class. In contrast, although certainly some individuals the SPLC criticize are religious, to my knowledge the SPLC has never criticized religious people as a class, nor have they ever criticized God.
So the difference is that the SPLC’s claims are based on facts, whereas you’re just making stuff up, without the slightest factual basis.
Now, now. Remember, I think the term “hate group” is generally a crock. I don’t think or say or call SPLC a hate group—I just wrote that they could just as easily be called one if someone set out to make that case. And I bet I could, if I wasn’t too lazy/busy/sane to do it. They aren’t a hate group. But neither is the FRC.
5. A sincere belief can still be a hateful belief. My blog was recently criticized on Stormfront’s website (a Nazi group), and people are submitting comments like “you **** JEw, you’re Jewish filth,” etc.. I don’t doubt that the comment-writer sincerely believes that Jews like me are filth, but that doesn’t mean his comment wasn’t hateful.
Yes, I agree with that. That is hateful speech. You’re Jewish?
A sincere belief that gay people are pedophiles, etc., is a hateful belief. A group that advocates for those beliefs can be called a hate group.
I’m not so sure I agree with that, though. I was taught that as a kid, and my father was the least hateful man I have ever met. He just didn’t know what he was talking about, as he later acknowldged, and was just repeated what he had been taught. Ignorance isn’t hate. It leads to fear. I think fear and ignorance are fairer descriptions of what is in play here than hate, but advocates like hate because it eliminates any empathy.
Groups that act violently are not just hate groups, but terrorists. I think your definition conflates “hate group” and “terrorist group,” but the two terms actually have different meanings.
I think terrorist is also over-used. A terrorist is trying to use violence to send a message and spread fear. A terrorist may not hate his target at all—often does not.
Reasonable people can disagree about what a hate group is, of course.
So what? Individuals don’t have a right to support them? Individuals who support them should be run out of town and not allowed to make a living? Individuals who work for such groups should be shot? What is the argument you want to make?
I don’t believe any of those awful things, and regularly argue the opposite when it comes up. (For instance, this week on another blog I’ve been arguing that although Professor Mark Regnerus created a scientifically ludicrous anti-gay study, it would be morally wrong for the University of Texas to fire or discipline him for that.)
My point is that there’s no right for right-wing groups to be spared from harsh criticism, nor is anyone ethically obligated to not call a hate group a hate group, or to not call a bigot a bigot. (I do think there’s an ethical obligation to practice “due diligence” before making such a claim, as the SPRC has done, and not to make such claims haphazardly or lightly.)
If that’s the point, I could not agree more.
I think we’ve played this argument out, and I’m content to leave it lying here, except for two points:
1) I don’t think the comparison to McCarthyism has merit. What made McCarthyism so deadly wasn’t that McCarthy criticized people using strong language; it was that people were fired, careers were ruined, and some people went to jail.
The SPRC hasn’t done anything like that, and the comparison to McCarthy is unfair.
2) Times change. In 1920, a lot of Americans thought terrible things about Jews, not out of hate, but because they were ignorant. But after WW2, most of those terrible anti-Semitic myths became discredited, and those clinging to them today are (generally speaking) hateful.
Similarly, once upon a time, people could believe that the typical gay man is a sick, predatory pervert who must be kept away from children, not out of hate, but out of ignorance and having been misinformed. It sounds like that was the situation your father was once in. But times have changed, and those views have been discredited, which is why mainstream, non-hateful people like your father no longer believe such things. The people still clinging to “gays are pedophiles” are not representative of folks like your father; they’re outliers and bigots. (Again, generally speaking.)
So what about gay marriage? I believe that right now, gay marriage is in a transitory state. Right now, many ordinary, non-hateful Americans believe that there’s something fundamentally wrong with same-sex marriage. But I predict that 40 years from now, no one but a small minority of determined haters will be clinging to that belief.
Oh, and I forgot to answer your question. Yes, I am Jewish. 🙂
That’s funny—your comments don’t LOOK Jewish… 🙂
Ampersand/Jack
“So the difference is that the SPLC’s claims are based on facts, whereas you’re just making stuff up, without the slightest factual basis.”
I would agree with your point on SPLC not labeling them as a hate group for only their stance on gay marriage however they are not exactly known as the most stalwart truth tellers themselves. That they should somehow be held as a higher moral authority is laughable. I will not go as far as to say that they have not righted some wrongs, they have. But to give them a pass on the character assassination, misrepresentation, slander and race baiting that they commonly employ to hold them up as an “expert” on what hate groups are is ridiculous. They utilize labels not to further discussion or “enlighten” but to stifle speech. Their tactics do nothing but create more divisiveness and for them it’s good for “business”.
“I don’t think the comparison to McCarthyism has merit. What made McCarthyism so deadly wasn’t that McCarthy criticized people using strong language; it was that people were fired, careers were ruined, and some people went to jail.”
“The SPRC hasn’t done anything like that, and the comparison to McCarthy is unfair.”
Are you sure about that? Because I am positive that you’re wrong, granted they don’t have the same authority as a senator, and certainly the subject is different but as for “people were fired, careers were ruined, and some people went to jail” I believe there is a solid comparison.
Now I have reread your comments several times, I may have missed it, but the tone of your responses seem to indicate exactly what Aaron Paschall was stating, ‘Hey, no one died, and they’re a bunch of haters, anyway!’ “
Aaron Paschall “What I find more distressing is the media’s quickness to remind everyone that this happened to a ‘hate group’ – dangerously close in many cases to excusing the behavior. ‘Hey, no one died, and they’re a bunch of haters, anyway!’ “
Jack Marshall “I haven’t read any legitimate media reports calling the Family Research Council a hate group. It isn’t, and it wouldn’t justify shooting its staff even if it were.”
As I think I stated before, I hold to the idea that the responsibility for this resides with the shooter, unless evidence is produce showing specifically that he was coerced into taking violent action, a very high bar to meet, then any group he is associated with should not be blamed. Also an attack on the FRC cannot be justified in anyway, regardless of a private organizations label of them, because of a difference of opinion on policy and speech.
My apologies to Ampersand/Aaron/Jack if I missed/or misused the context of your points. Please set me strait if I did.
FRC “hate group” or not?
The case for the prosecution:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council
I consider though that that’s irrelevant. I think that there’s a prima facie case for prosecution of the shooter as a domestic terrorist, similar to the case for those who shoot up abortion clinics.
Thanks Zoe, that is the analogy I was thinking of.
“Now, however, since an apparent left-wing nut carrying a Chic-fil-A bag attempted to shoot up a conservative lobbying group that opposes gay marriage, the conservative yakkers are demanding their own cheap shots..”
Okay,look. Chic-fil-A bag carried by the shooter and anti-gay marriage group,unlike the Arizona shooting and the Batman movie shooting, has a connect the dots doesn’t it?If I didn’t know better I’d say the shooter was trying to make a political statement. But I haven’t read the story,not that I would expect to get the straight poop anyway.
The point is that this guy is an individual, yes with a likely political agenda (hence the Domestic terrorism investigation), but that should not mean that individuals who share his opinion need to be demonized or held culpable for his actions.
Oh no of course not. People should not believe he speaks for any individual other than himself or group.
Of course he was making a political statement. So what? All the criticism of the Family Research Council in the world doesn’t make the critics responsible for a loon who decides to shoot them….and by definition, anyone whose solution for social policy disagreements is to start shooting is a loon.
Did I misunderstand your point? I thought it was about connecting a shooters actions to a certain agenda.
Yes. The issue is condemning political speech and advocacy as provocative of violence directed to the target of the criticism, not connecting the shooter’s actions from his own perspective to an agenda.
Sorry.
Is there a legal definition of “hate group” or “hate speech”?
From USLegal
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/
There is no such legal term as to Hate groups that I can find.
Okay, let me highlight the difference between Aurora & Jarod Lee Loughner on one hand and the FRC shooting on the other hand. The first two shooters were crazy and the liberal media immediately tried to make it a political shooting. In the FRC shooting, an LGBT volunteer went into a building carrying 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches (yeah, 15, so I’m guessing it wasn’t his lunch), loudly announced, “I disagree with your politics!” and shot a security guard. THEN instead of trying to make it political, all the news agencies reported that the police didn’t yet understand his motivations. REALLY???? He was carrying FIFTEEN chick-fil-a’s and yelled “I disagree with your politics!” but nobody has a clue what his motives were??? Everybody’s scratching their heads trying to figure out what the 15 chick-fil-a sandwiches means. “Gee, I think it might be a clue of some kind here… not sure though… it’s an awful lot of food… maybe he was upset because they got his order wrong– I just can’t figger this one out here!” The media and the police sound about as clueless as the fake image of Sarah Palin that they conspired to create four years ago. It’s hysterical how differently the media treats it, Jack. You have to be completely blind-folding yourself not to see it.
Once more, you don’t understand a straightforward post. The conservative media is angry that that the liberal media wasn’t unethical in the same way it was before. NOW it is acting properly. The FRC shooter wasn’t primed by criticism of Chick-fil-A. It’s a double standard, but the remedy isn’t to make a ridiculous argument again.
Jack,
I caught a few other conservative talk shows after you brought this up and I can honestly say that most represented that the media was covering it as it should but did go to lengths to point out the liberal media hypocrisy in reporting shootings. Did your premonition on Rush pan out?
I don’t know what Rush said about it. I agree that the conservative media complaint quickly morphed into objections to how the the shootings were covered. Since nobody was killed in the last shooting, that complaint is pretty lame.