Skip to comments.AZ Aftermath: Halperin Praises Media, Condemns Fox, Conservatives For Not 'Turning Other Cheek'
Posted on 01/11/2011 4:36:29 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
NewsBusters has exhaustively documented the way in which the liberal media and Dem politicians have sought to exploit the Arizona shootings, seeking to pin blame on a range of Republicans and conservative media figures.
It was thus nothing short of surreal to listen to MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin this morning. Surveying the situation, Halperin praised the media and politicians for their reaction to the shooting . . . while condemning Fox News and conservative pundits for treating the tragedy like "war and fodder for content."
When Joe Scarborough rightly suggested that Halperin had it backwards, the Time man wouldn't back down. View video after the jump.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin praises media and politician handling of AZ shooting, condemns Fox and conservatives for their reaction. Ping to Today show list.
Cheese Whiz, these liberals are touchy aren’t they?
All the conservative commentators have done is state the obvious. There hasn’t been any threat of “bombs falling in five minutes” or anything like that.
It is the democrat way and they will not be happy until communism replaces the American representative republic and the despised masses are slaves to the socialist empire just like other communist nations so beloved of the hateful left.
Well, it cheers me up to make them miserable, if that’s what they call happy.
When the MSM screamers have both lost Brooks, a Wet Tory if there ever was one and caused a Nancy Boy like David Brooks to have sympathy for Sarah Palin, the Tide has Turned.
We’re just trying to repair reputations that have been damaged by a blood libel....that’s all.
Scarborough got this part right, as conservatives sat and waited foe the blame game to begin. Ourvoices were raised only in self defense. Scarborough is wrong by hoping conservatives remain silent for the purpose of harmony...”time for conversation about our political discourse.”
Libs conveniently forget the vitriol from the left (see Michelle Malkin’s summary).
Maybe it’s well that most of them don’t want anything to do with guns. They might shoot their dogs or sumfin after hearing about the latest Rush Limbaugh “scandal” on the boob tube.
It’s the dems motto “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.
This is the same tact they use when calling for “bipartisanship”......after they have their asses handed to them in an election.
And the libs are touchy... all the conservative pundits are saying is that “hey these accusations aren’t true” and the libs act as though they got punched in the nose.
To rational and sane people there is no excuse for the hateful mindless knee-jerk reaction-ism we see in liberal politicians and the old elite media. It is unacceptable to good people and must be pointedly ignored, and when needed, pointedly rejected by clear forceful statements of rejection of that base behavior.
turning?....it’s more like they want separating.
No they don’t like statements like, “they bring a knife you bring a gun”, oh damn messed up again. LOL Not civil discourse don’t you know.
Last night Mark Levin suggested he would be initiating law suits against anyone who blamed him for these murders and assaults.
IMHO the answer to this blood libel is to sue those making these unacceptable claims.
What "handling" is that, having some sappy memorial service where faux mourners most who never had any connection to the deceased can come with placards decrying "right wing rage" and lax gun laws for the tragic shooting of one of their clergy. Liberalism is a religion and a Congress-person is one of their Cardinals. In some sick way Obama and his minions felt a ping of absolute elation about this. I am sure Obama did a fist pump after he learned it was a fellow Democrat who was shot. He knew it was good for 10+ poll points and a few days of ceremony and speechifying where meaningless drivel would be on the menu. Does anyone even listen to Mark Halperin anyways, who is this tool?
A few observations:
1. Democrats with any sense are beginning to run away from blaming the shooting on Republicans, as well they should. The guy was an obsessed lunatic, and that’s all. In fact a majority of Americans agree with this fact and any further accusations by left wing morons will simply further isolate them, driving away yet more moderate Democrats and Independents (the recent article about the white flight from the Democrat party immediately comes to mind).
2. This sheriff making all this noise is simply to trying to divert attention from the fact his office did NOTHING about this guy even though everyone knew he was a certified lunatic. In fact his office knew this guy had made death threats before. That is an arrestable offense. He chould have been ordered by the courts to get medication, etc. It never happened. CYA!
3. Where are this guys parents?!?!?!?! Why didn’t they get him help? Why hasn’t anyone brought this up? Oh yeah, too busy pointing fingers.
“Liberals are missing several areas of their brain that in normal people function to establish any sense of right or wrong, truth or fiction.”
Bingo! I’m stunned at how reality is never allowed to intrude into the thought processes of libs, where every decision seems to be made solely upon how they “feel” or how things “should be”.
How magical, never having to confront inconvenient things like physics, scientific fact, or human nature.
Sometimes I really think that the only hope for our country is to be divided into two separate zones - reality and fantasy. And enforce strict border control between the two.
Oh wise and knowledgeable people, please defeat these people with words. I am failing. Please forgive me.
The same Mark Halperin whose father works for Soros? Yeah, he’s credible.
I thought Levin was a smarter lawyer than that. Best of luck on that, Mark. You're making your living by giving your opinions in public, I think that's called a "public figure."
Next, conservatives will be blamed for not walking quietly and peaceably to the showers. Or, to a cross of their own.
All the stuff they used to use to “shut up” conservatives isn’t working! OH NOES!
Quick, play the race card again, HARDER! (what? even that one isn’t working?) AAAARGH!
Liberal ideology inherently dismisses the idea of an objective reality and objective right and wrong
in favor of what they “think” (feel) at the moment.
Obviously . . . but IMHO there is only one possible way to do it effectively, and that is not to restrict ourselves to "arguing with people who buy ink by the carload." No, the must be a major civil libel suit. Not a suit for a symbolic dollar, either - it must be a suit which
The first question is, what is the defendant in such a suit? Certainly not "the media," nor even "big journalism," which are amorphous entities with apparently no head and no pocketbook. No, the defendant in the suit must be the Associated Press and its membership. That is a serious target (ahem). And one with the deep enough pockets to have skin in the game, and to be worth skining.
- is winnable, and
- alleges damages in the billions of dollars.The Associated Press is the mechanism which created Big JournaIism, and Big Journalism is the "nonfiction" entity within "the media." The Associated Press spreads libel far and wide, injecting it into the nation's discourse while at one and the same time claiming "First Amendment freedom" as "the press," and laboring to deny that same freedom to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al. The Associated Press is like an ant colony or a bee hive - simultaneously a single entity endeavoring to exclude all competition from its market, and a swarm of "individuals" claiming the First Amendment rights of individuals.
Big Journalism assays to exclude from "the press" anyone who criticizes any journalist. Big Journalism has been able to get "campaign finance reform" legislation through Congress when the people, if polls are to be believed, did not care about McCain-Feingold. McCain-Feingold is corrupt because it assigns to Big Journalism rights which it denies to the people, as if "the press" were co-extensive with the Associated Press. The fact that Big Journalism has succeeded in extracting unconstitutional benefits from Congress by the power of its flattery and derision marks it as the legitimate target for a RICO suit. Big Journalism demands that it be accorded rights in the name of "the people" while systematically exerting itself to stifle the voice of the individual person. Big Journalism demands respect as a sort of nobility, a class distinct from either the government or the people. Big Journalism is the enemy of liberty.
Big Journalism's claims of objectivity not only are not proof of its objectivity, they are evidence - in conjunction with the plentiful examples of self-dealing which are endemic to journalism - rather evidence of the very tendentiousness which they seek to deny. For if any tendentiousness at all can be demonstrated, a claim of objectivity is simply an amplification of that very bias. Journalism's bias is that it represents the public interest, whereas in fact it represents only the titillation of the interest of the public. And things which interest the public not only are not certain to be in the public interest, they are often inimical to it. Pornography is one example, and bad news in general is another. Although public knowledge of ill tidings can certainly be in the public interest, exclusive emphasis on the negative is a lack of perspective.
Skepticism is valuable, but cynicism is destructive of the public good. It would take objectivity to discern and act on that difference - but journalism's mission of promoting itself over those who take responsibility for results is inherently cynical. Big Journalism's slurs on Republicans and the middle class amount to promotion of the idea that advocates of constitutional ordered liberty are the primary danger to society - rather than the guarantors of its safety.
At some point, turning the other cheek becomes an act of cowardice. More than that, it is an affront to everything we stand for. As Jefferson said, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.
You still have to defend yourself in court. You have to spend the money to do it. Scumbag tort lawyers do this to good companies every day.
The best one I’ve heard so far is that the Surgeon that wrote the paper alleging the MMR vaccine was causing autism in kids took 10,000 pounds from a tort lawyer in a pending civil suit in the UK.
The lancet sent the paper around to six other doctors, four of which rejected it outright saying it was worse than thin.
Lancet printed it anyway because it was ‘controversial’.
14 full-blown major studies later, MMR is finally shown NOT to cause autism in children. How many kids died from not receiving those vaccinations as a result of the scumbags involved (a doctor, a lawyer, and a rag peddler)? 1000’s.
Any of those guys going to see the inside of a criminal courtroom? Doubt it seriously.
Between the press, the tort lobby, and unions, we are on the brink of real economic doom.
That’s Mark Halperin? Is he out? He looks gay, and I don’t mean happy.
3. Where are this guys parents?!?!?!?! Why didnt they get him help? Why hasnt anyone brought this up? Oh yeah, too busy pointing fingers.”
It is my opinion that the family got to the sheriff in each occasion where the kid was in trouble and convinced him to drop any investigation in the name of the dem party.
FNS just had a Doctor on air who said had the family gotten him to a shrink early on, he could have been treated with anti-psycotic meds and this would have been avoided.
I guess the parents were willing to trade the lives of a number of innocent people for the precious name of their killer kid!
I do not need to apologize for refusing to "turn the other cheek" for I'm fresh out of them to "turn," as you and the Left (Moderates included) have referred to me as "dangerous; extremist; hate-mongerer; bitter clinger;" and these are the decent ones that I can mention in public. Why, pray tell am I considered so bad - I'm pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-border security.
I was in step in the 50's, in fact, my views were on a par with Kennedy (Jack, that is), Harry Truman and perhaps even Franklin Roosevelt but that was your father's Democrat Party.
Today, my views label me as far right; religious right; and even "wing-nut," by the Left and even by some in my own party, who consider themselves as part of the mainstream (meaning pro-abortion; pro-gay marriage and ignoring illegal aliens and prefer the term "undocumented migrant" are mainstream.
Keep your name-calling and judgmentmentalism to yourself and your own friends and family - please!
Tomorrow Halperin will praise the Westboro “Baptist Church” for its wisdom in seeing the connection between the massacre of a 9 year old girl and God’s (Fred Phelps’s) anger over something or another (and need to make headlines). It’s equally rational.
I thought Levin was a smarter lawyer than that. Best of luck on that, Mark. You're making your living by giving your opinions in public, I think that's called a "public figure.""Last night Mark Levin suggested he would be initiating law suits against anyone who blamed him for these murders and assaults."
I attempt (as a non-lawyer) to treat this issue in my #32. The point has to be that when Big Journalism is a single, identifiable entity with a single, identifiable (and hostile) POV, there is scant recourse against slander (actually libel) by that entity. And that Big Journalism is such an entity is pitifully easy to show; the membership of Big Journalism unselfconsciously stonewall facts which are inconvenient to its case, and its "case" is always the same - that nobody can be trusted except Big Journalism. Big Journalism, and its acolytes, to whom Big Journalism assigns positive labels such as "progressive," or "liberal," or "moderate."
Who is "Big Journalism," and how would you name it in a lawsuit? Simple - Big Journalism is the Associated Press and its membership. Big Journalism excludes from its membership any who would criticize any of its members in any serious way. Thus, a Dan Rather can promote a fistfull of fraudulent "Texas Air National Guard memos" and, after being busted by proofs that those "memos" were fraudulent, double down and refuse to apologize and withdraw his accusations against President Bush43. He did so secure in the knowledge that he would not be seriously criticized, let alone ostracized, by the rest of Big Journalism.
He was secure in that knowledge for the simple reason that all "MSM" journalists have each other's back, and none of them would dare to break that cabal's code. And he was right. CBS conducted a show "investigation" which found that there was no political motive behind a fraudulent October Surprise hit piece on the Republican presidential candidate. A "surprise" which, to go by the advertising which the Democratic Party had ready to launch in an instantaneous followup to the 60 Minutes hit piece, was no surprise at all to the Democratic Party. And the rest of Big Journalism uttered not a peep about it.
Nor is the "TANG memo" hoax unique, or even unusual. Big Journalism turned the Duke lacrosse team "rape" hoax into fodder for almost a year of heated discussion despite the obvious fact that Nifong was trying the case in the newspapers because he was running for election - and that his witness was unreliable and self-interested. It was just a matter of time before the truth caught up with Nifong - but what an experience for those young men to be arbitrarily subjected to!! Another example is the SBVT effort to oppose the election of John Kerry, and the PR effort that Big Journalism launched against them.
Why does Big Journalism go along with the Democratic Party? The question is miscast. To ask the question, "Why would politicians go along and get along with Big Journalism?" is to answer it. Once accept the obvious fact that Big Journalism exists as an identifiable entity with identifiable "follow the money" interests, and the granting of any special treatment to any member of Big Journalism - see for an egregious example the limits on criticism of candidates by anyone except members of Big Journalism during election campaigns - becomes absurdly unconstitutional.
Enactment of any such law is corrupt - and, lest we forget, there were plenty of Republican congressmen willing to vote for the McCain-Feingold monstrosity. And George W. Bush signed it, and Sandra Day O'Connor put the imprimatur of SCOTUS on it. But O'Connor was replaced by Alito and - Kennedy ruling as he did at the time - McConnell v. FEC would go the other way today. So, general tendency notwithstanding, Republicans are not uniformly principled enough to stand with the people and the Constitution against the flattery and derision of self-aggrandizing Big Journalism.
Talk Radio is a format which depends crucially on appearing to represent the public by fairly taking on callers as they come. That stands in direct contrast to journalism, which is inherently a "we're objective and the public isn't," proposition because of its format. And it turns out that, although the soap opera actor says that acting is easy once you've learned to fake sincerity, the public which listens to talk radio can readily tell if the talk show host screens out challenging calls and only answers softball questions. The reality is that claims of "objectivity" - or "moderation" or any other virtue - become unsupportable when subjected to truthful attacks based on facts and logic which must be answered by the talk show host in real time. The consequence has been that people with a "liberal" mindset hear their views reflected adequately by Big Journalism, and people who recognize the limitations of Big Journalism's "objectivity" constitute the audience of Talk Radio.
To return to my starting point, when Big Journalism is a single, identifiable entity with a single, identifiable (and hostile) POV, there is very limited recourse against libel by that entity. Thoughtful people tend to see through the tendentiousness of Big Journalism, but the relative sizes of the audiences for Big Journalism and for Talk Radio certainly give pause to a belief in the adequacy of purely rational argumentation as a basis for PR. The one place where you are supposed to win or lose purely on the facts and logic of your case is the courtroom. That is why I favor a maximum effort to bring the Associated Press and its membership to book in court. And given the slender-reed nature of any hope of support from the Attorney General even in a Republican administration, that leaves only the idea of a civil suit. As far as suing the AP is concerned, it shouldn't hurt your chances to be able to point out that the AP was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945. And whereas the AP had such an obvious benefit in conserving scarce bandwidth in the days of the telegraph, and seemed to be "too big to fail" in 1945, in the 21st Century the bandwidth required for journalism is practically free. So today a remedy which threatened the existence of the AP would not obviously be counter to the public interest.
Having identified the defendant, however, I am unsure of exactly who the plaintiff should be. Certainly Mark Levin and talk radio hosts generally have an interest in defeating any legal restrictions/prohibitions which the present imbroglio and the present administration threaten. But just as certainly the audience of talk radio has its rights threatened by those same forces. And I would rather the audience be the plaintiff, if that is actually possible.Journalism and Objectivity
You do realize that Big Journalism is the name of one of Andrew Breitbart’s websites?
To that point, your entire screed is in need of adjustment as you constantly refer to Big Journalism in capital letters.
Correct! In war, when they are losing they want to stop fighting and negotiate. After they have recouped and replenished their troops and supplies they will launch a sneak attack and the war is on again. The key phrase here is that now they want the conservatives to turn the other cheek. When they are winning it is an eye for an eye but when they are losing they tell us to turn the other cheek.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Thanks for the ping. OUTSTANDING post!