Posted on 01/19/2011 9:29:33 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Perhaps the only thing left to be said about the Jan. 9 shootings in Tuscon is that so much of the early speculation now appears to have been reckless, groundless and wrong.
The strength of the 24/7 TV news networks has always been their ability to quickly focus resources on a breaking national story. That works well when they have a tornado, snowstorm, hurricane or flood to cover.
But in some cases, like the Tuscon shootings, the facts available simply could not fill the time allotted, even when they were repeatedly endless. The audience suddenly had a huge appetite for news, and the networks only had factual crumbs to offer.
When that happens, reporters begin interviewing other reporters. One TV reporter suddenly assumes the role of expert, while the other asks him or her questions, opening the door to all sorts of speculation.
And the big question was simple: Why? Why would this young man attack a crowd of people?
Unfortunately, the big answer to that question simply was not available. But that didn't stop the media from speculating.
In this case, attention quickly focused on the climate of hate speech in politics, namely the things said by Republicans and tea party candidates during the last election campaign.
Sarah Palin in particular found herself in the media cross-hairs for a map showing gun sights targeting various congressional races, including the seat held by one of the victims, Gabrielle Giffords.
The obvious implication was that the assassin either was, or may have been, motivated by Palin's map.
Ten days later, we know quite a bit more about Jared Loughner than we did in the hours and days following the shooting.
His friends have been quizzed by reporters, and his website and blog postings have been thoroughly analyzed.
In all of that, there is nothing linking Sarah Palin or, for that matter, political hate speech, to the crime.
What emerges instead is a picture of an angry, incoherent loner who thought the government was trying to control us through the rules of grammar. In short, a person disconnected from reality living in a hallucinatory world.
Palin responded several days after the shooting in her own defense with an eight-minute video calling the accusations a "blood libel," most likely echoing a headline in the Wall Street Journal that used the same words.
In both references her meaning was clear — she felt she had been falsely accused of having blood on her hands.
Instead of focusing on the possible truth of that statement, media attention turned instead to an obscure historical slur involving Jews.
So, Palin went from motivating a killer to supposedly attacking Jews, completely bypassing the point that she seemed to be correct that there was apparently no connection between her map and Jared Loughner.
Perhaps as the investigation moves forward, more information will come to light. Perhaps it will even involve Sarah Palin.
Until then, the lesson for politicians seems to be to tone down the rhetoric, which they seem to be doing.
It is unlikely the media has drawn its lesson from the crisis, to resist speculating in the midst of a crisis.
I just made a donation to her current money bomb. This is the most effective message I can send.
The author makes it sound like the left only began accusing right wing haters and Palin just to fill in the time and make the news more exciting. NO! This is an integral part of the left’s plan right out of the Saul Alinsky play book. They will use every opportunity to do this because if it said enough it becomes “true” to all the sheeple.
Wolf Blitzer nailed that failed Sheriff Dupnik.
Expand on that please because I f-in hate the bottom dweller Dumship.
Within 24 hours of the Safeway shooting a “law enforcement memo” was leaked to the news media quoting a Department of Homeland Security report that Loughner was linked to a right-wing, nativist, antisemitic group. This may have been what set off Krugman and others.
No kidding.
Last Saturday afternoon, various Freepers were reporting that Fox News was reporting that Gabby is a "pro-life, pro-gun conservative Democrat."
Um, no.
Gabrielle Giffords NRA Rating D+, GOA Rating D-
Gabrielle Giffords Nat'l Right to Life Rating: a big fat Zero Percent.
NARAL Rating: 100%
Fox News showed me they're just as pathetic as the other Alphabets.
These so-called reporters are getting paid huge money to report facts, and all they do is regurgitate hearsay.
I love the faux outrage from liberals as they get worked up over a 12th century term that they didn’t even know about until last week.
Talk about being a tool.
The blood libel ploy was a diversion from the fact that we knew that the guy’s motive was unpolitical. Unable to attack her on that ground, they then decided that she had no right to defend herself. Her rivals have now jumped into say, “well,I would never say something like this.” Never mind that she had in fact taken this from a WSJ headline.
Liberal Democrat.
Rush played Wolfs interview of Dupnik.
Dupnik admitted he had no evidence of any connection that would lead one to connect Sarah Palin , Rush or the Tea Party to the shooters actions.
It was just his opinion.
My thoughts:
An opinion which should never have been offered by an investigating Sheriff’s department.
The defense WILL use the Sheriffs opinion to help their client.
Sheriff Dupnik and the media have helped the killer of 9 year old Christiana Green.
Her opponent Jesse Kelly is a real conservative, and one of his campaign talking points was that she voted with Nancy Pelosi 90% of the time. She voted for the bailouts, the stimulus, green energy, ObamaCare, she's got a Land Deal that would make Harry Reid blush, but, no matter.
She knows how to play the game.
I pray for her recovery, as directed by God, but her politics stink.
” If something happens tomorrow they’ll do the same or worse. She scares them beyond reason.”
my tagline explains it
Here is what Wikipedia has on Giffords' and gun rights:
Gun rightsGiffords supports gun rights.[84] She opposed the Washington D.C. gun ban, signing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support its overturn.[84][85]
Despite her stated support, gun rights groups typically give her low grades on the topic. She has a D+ rating from the NRA[86] and a D− from the GOA.[87]
Big deal. Democrats voted against Nancy Pelosi when they knew she had no chance of winning.
Then they can go back to their constituents and say "See, I voted against her!".
Spare me that worthless lie.
What she says, and what she does, are two different things. She is a master politician.
That's not just "saying".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.