We do not object to the condemnation of violence and violent rhetoric; such a sentiment feels absolutely appropriate. But the association between Saturday’s shooting and recent “violent political rhetoric”—which has in the last two years come to specifically mean the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, birthers, etc.—is so far unproven. At this time, there is no evidence that Loughner targeted Giffords for any clear or clearly understandable political reasons or that he was inspired by “vitriol” in political rhetoric. In its report addressing these very connections, the Times is quick to note that “the exact motivations of the suspect in the shootings remained unclear,” before exploring the issue of politically motivated violence.
The temptation to jump to the conclusion that Loughner is something of a result of the last two years of political tumult is strong. A number of factors feed the narrative:
- Sarah Palin’s map of targeted congressional races leading up the midterms included Giffords’s, with the controversial crosshairs graphic focused on the Congresswoman’s district because of her vote for health care reform. It will likely dint Palin’s reputation too, and add fuel to those looking to dump Saturday’s incident at her feet, that the graphic has been scrubbed from the site since the shooting.
- Giffords had already been the target of what appeared to be anti-health care right wing attacks. Her district office was vandalized last March, the glass front door shattered by attackers following an uptick in heated rhetoric directed at her and other members of Congress supporting reform. She discussed the attack and the nature of heated political rhetoric on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown that month in a video the network played repeatedly Saturday, firming the associations between the incident and the shooting, despite anchors repeatedly noting they were not intending that connection. In a previous meet-and-greet event at another Arizona Safeway, Giffords’ staff called police after one attendee dropped a gun.
- Pima Country Sherriff Clarence W. Dupnik’s eloquent and powerful press conference on Saturday pushed the debate over political rhetoric directly to the fore in a way that was heralded by liberals and condemned by some conservatives as “reckless.” Dupnik argued that “vitriol” had contributed to the incident and made pointed remarks about the state of politics in Arizona. From the Washington Post’s report on the resonance of Dupnik’s remarks:
“There’s reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol,” he said during his televised remarks. “People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences.”
“The anger the hatred the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately I think Arizona has become sort of the capital,” he said. “We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
The politically charged comments rang familiar to those who had read Dupnik’s May op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in which he attacked Arizona’s controversial immigration laws.
- In a sound bite too hot to ignore, the New York Post reported Saturday that when asked if his daughter had any enemies, Congresswoman Giffords’s father Spencer Giffords responded, “Yeah… The whole Tea Party.”
And yet.
Loughner remains something of a mystery. His political motivations are unclear. His Youtube page is open to much interpretation, but one would be hard pressed to find a clear anti-health care, Tea Party-style protest in the incomprehensible text ramblings. Nearly every straight news report makes a point of noting that “There is no indication that the suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, identified with the tea party or was politically conservative.” The New York Times’s big Loughner report today leaves you with very little to go on other than this: “…there appear to be no explicit threats of violence that explain why, as police allege, Mr. Loughner, 22, would go to a Safeway supermarket north of Tucson on Saturday morning and begin shooting at a popular Democratic congresswoman and more than a dozen other people, killing 6 and wounding 19.”
Just wanted to clarify your characterization of me in the piece above, since you did so by citing Patrick Laforge's without actually noting what he was responding to. I was tracking (and rigorously attributing) the coverage and the updating news throughout yesterday afternoon and early evening, and in so doing noticed inconsistencies in the NYT's homepage, which stated that Giffords' fate was unknown, with an article that had been updated to reflect the news that she had died. I took a screengrab and noted it on Twitter. I then noted shortly thereafter that the reference to Giffords having died had been removed, and screengrabbed that. I, like Folkenflik, noted that the coverage was ongoing and evolving and I, like Laforge, noted that we did not yet have enough information to ascribe motive, even if larger issues of political rhetoric were germane to the discussion (as they were, based on the specific Palin sights on Giffords' district, Giffords' own cautionary note about them, and her opponent's specific gun-based metaphors directed at her during the election). I just wanted to clarify that since it is unclear from the piece above whether I was being perceived as part of the problem or part of the solution. I'd like to think the latter.
#1 Posted by Rachel Sklar, CJR on Sun 9 Jan 2011 at 04:45 PM
Right. Just as the "association" between Army of God and Operation Rescue's violent rhetoric, and the assassination of Dr. George Tiller "remains unproven." The "association" between Randall Terry's rhetoric and Eric Rudolph's bombing of abortion clinics "remain unproven." We've seen this before, before the Oklahoma City bombing, before the Kennedy assassination, the murders of abortion providers. It's violent rightwing rhetoric inciting unstable people to do violence. There IS an association there. It's folly to deny it.
It's entirely predictable that the Republicans disavow any responsibility for the consequences of their vicious dog-whistle politics of the past two years, pretending to be the victim instead of the enablers. And already we see some in the mainstream media getting pressured to absolve Ms. Palin and Ms. Bachmann, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage, of any responsibility for inciting mentally unstable people to violence. Nobody has claimed a direct causation -- it's dishonest to imply otherwise, Joel.
When you have an atmosphere of Republican leaders inciting people to seething rage, encouraging "Second Amendment remedies" and calling, on the steps of the US Congress, for "armed revolution" you don't get to play the victim when unstable people take you up on your invitation and wreak violence and assassination in a spray of gunfire. Take some damned responsibility, Joel, and join the call for toning down this deadly rhetoric.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 9 Jan 2011 at 05:42 PM
You know, for eight years there was little to no political violence, unless you count the time a unitarian church was shot up by a Hannity fan, and that was during the worst period of government corruption and police state expansion in American history (in my opinion). And recently we've seen various attacks ranging from broken windows on democratic offices to the attempted shoot up of the Tides foundation by that Glen Beck fan.
Now congresswoman Giffords, who's now experienced the full range of violence, was attacked by a man with weird ideas about monetary policy, stuff that conservative show hosts often talk about while shilling gold during their commercial breaks. Is it responsible to report the motivations of a maniac without establishing what those motivations are based on evidence and discussion with the maniac? No.
Is it justified to talk about the trend of political violence, and it's corelation with disgusting political rhetoric, in the wake of an assassination? Yes.
It's about bloody time.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 9 Jan 2011 at 07:11 PM
The violent rhetoric of the teabaggers and other wingnuts need not directly incite those like the Tucson shooter to make such events more likely.
Of course such discourse convinces the sociopathic that their urges are justified and normal. More importantly, in a culture boiling with tough-talking dipshits, the truly dangerous don't stand out enough to attract attention and intervention until it's too late.
This is simple common sense.
Before our country went insane, if someone showed up at a political event carrying a gun, he would be treated like the dangerous threat he is, instead of ignored until he starts shooting.
#4 Posted by Jim Saul, CJR on Sun 9 Jan 2011 at 07:14 PM
Oh, come on. Nobody cited a 'climate of hate' incited by political opponents against George Wallace, or Gerald Ford, or Ronald Reagan when each of these politicians, much-hated by the political Left, was shot or shot at. This was not unwise; like those actions, this one was sui generis to the killer himself. The more we know, the more we discover that the murderer fits the usual profile of a personality attracted to exreme notions (he was a 9/11 'truther', for example) that don't fit a political ideology. The statements of the police chief indicate that he is part of the problem rather than part of the solution, if a lot of people are interested in making large statements about bigotry and civility. So are the statements of the posters above.
Compare and contrast with the restraint shown after the Fort Hood and Little Rock murders last year. Even if the MSM and the poltical Left avert their eyes from the constrast in news coverage and framing, I expect most consumers will not. The Daily Kos quickly scrubbed a post from a Tucson resident after Giffords refused to vote for Pelosi as Speaker, which stated the 'progressives' disgust with Giffords in such terms as 'she is dead to me'. Be careful what kind of standards you hold your opponents to, lefties. It can be turned against you just like that.
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 10 Jan 2011 at 12:41 PM
Be careful what kind of standards you hold your opponents to, lefties. It can be turned against you just like that.
Do you honestly think that’s even a remote possibility Mark?
The most common narrative coming from the “cooler heads” in this debates seems to go like this: we don’t know what motivated Loughner but lets spend 75% of the article on the politics of hate to drive our point home about how much we hate conservatives and let the readers draw the conclusion between the two.
Lets call it the political violence gnomes:
1. Sarah Palin targets representatives for electoral defeat
2. ????
3. Jared Lee Loughner goes on a killing spree at a Safeway.
With all the talk about the “politics of hate” lately, I don’t recall such an enthusiasm over examples like these. Different strokes I suppose.
This guy has all the hallmarks of a schizophrenic but by the time all the facts about him come out the die will have already been cast that Loughner was a Gadsen waving, Tea Party dittohead whop did this because of health care refrom. Whats worse is that this isn’t a flaw, it seems to be a feature.
#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 10 Jan 2011 at 01:12 PM
"At this time, there is no evidence that Loughner targeted Giffords for any clear or clearly understandable political reasons or that he was inspired by “vitriol” in political rhetoric."
I guess I'm a bit confused but isn't an attempted assassination political by definition?
"assassinate |əˈsasəˌnāt|
verb (often be assassinated)
murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons. See note at kill ."
#7 Posted by Joiseau, CJR on Mon 10 Jan 2011 at 02:47 PM
I guess I'm a bit confused but isn't an attempted assassination political by definition?
Ever hear of John Hinckley Jr?
#8 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 10 Jan 2011 at 03:45 PM
just wanted all you leftists to know that 2 days before the shooting, the "daily kos" called for the death of this congress women. 2 days later she is shot. So if any one is to blame it's the hate on the Left and not the Right. The supposed "hate speech" from the Right doesn't come close to the hate speech from the Left. And by the way, the first to introduce representatives as shooting targets were Democrats in 2004. But that was OK because the targets were Republicans, right? And want to know more? this lunatic was obsessed with the congresswoman since 2007, when Palin was a total unknown to anyone outside of Alaska. As with all latest crazy shootings, in which the media screamed "tea Party" and than it turned out to be some leftist lunatic,Ii am quite sure this will turn out to be the same. but I don't think any of you will apologize than. Just like Bloomberg didn't bother to apologize when the would be Christmas day bomber turned out to be a Muslim and not a right wing nut.
#9 Posted by bava cohe, CJR on Mon 10 Jan 2011 at 06:46 PM
I'm sorry but is this the only incident of political violence the last couple of years or just the latest? Because if it's the only act, then we can start dismissing the critiques of the Beck/Limbaugh/Malkin medium because this one act, though notable, was executed by an unaffiliated lunatic to our knowledge.
But if there have been many recently, and the past has been riddled with many for the last century or three, is it too much to ask for some goddamn introspection and for certain rhetorical bomb throwers to tone it the hell down?
Because, if not, then I hope you all die. And If so, then I apologize and take what I said back, jerks.
*shakes head in disgust*
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 10 Jan 2011 at 06:58 PM
Is it justified to talk about the trend of political violence, and it's corelation with disgusting political rhetoric, in the wake of an assassination? Yes.
-------------------------------------------
Hear, hear. From what we know from the early reporting, the alleged shooter was a "left-wing pothead."
So he could well have been influenced by the shrill voices on the left, such as those at the Daily Kos, which had put a "bullseye" on Giffords for not adequately backing health-care reform and other liberal causes. He might have been influenced by President Obama, who said of his political opponents: ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
Perhaps he was a regular viewer of MSNBC, which serves up a constant menu of violent rhetoric, including the time Chris Matthews fantasized about someone "jamming" a bullet into Rush Limbaugh's head; or the time Keith Olbermann described conservative writer Michelle Malkin as “a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick;” or the time Ed Schultz talked about Dick Cheney's heart problems and said “We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him.”
There of course have been incidents of actual violence, such as the time some union thugs in Missouri beat up a Tea Party activist in a wheelchair who was trying to get into a health-care hearing, or the time another man bit off the finger of a Tea Party member who was protesting health-care reform in California.
I could go on and on about the overheated rhetoric and actual violence that has come from the left, and may have pushed this man over the edge, but that is a job for the press to do. Isn't it, Thimbles
#11 Posted by frank, CJR on Mon 10 Jan 2011 at 08:27 PM
Frank, I'll let you keep your overblown "liberal hate" examples and we'll compare body counts.
If you had an honest intention of moderating the political speech on your side, I'd say "Sure, we should all watch our mouths." But, from the tone of your post you aren't interested in holding people accountable for their words, you want to throw up some dust and pretend "It's okay to have my liberal hunting license bumper sticker because libs hate too. Obama used a metaphor once, AH - HA!"
It's sad because, even when people are bleeding and dead in the streets, some conservatives care more about defending their partisan websites and tv programs - the ones who like to play funny games like picking a person they don't like and making them this weeks 2 minute hate feature and then publishing their contact information and address - then they do about the bleeding and the dead.
You suck sir, and you do the websites that serve your talking points up pile by steaming pile.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 10 Jan 2011 at 10:07 PM
The sanctimony of the liberals in office and in the media is nauseating. They take political advantage fo a terrible tragedy, exploiting the carnage for political gain. Then after launching unfounded cheapshots at the oppposition say we need to dial down the rhetoric..... puulllleeeeeze...
The "targeting" thing was a Democratic invention in 2004. Yes that's right.
From Fox News:
"Indeed, a nearly identical map, included in a Democratic Leadership Committee publication in 2004, featured nine bullseyes over regions where Republican candidates were considered vulnerable that year, and was accompanied by a caption reading: TARGETING STRATEGY. A smaller caption, beneath the bullseyes, read: BEHIND ENEMY LINES. The map illustrated an article on campaign strategy by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute."
Sliming political opponents and blaming them for what you have already done, is despicable. Taking advantage of a tragedy to score some cheap political points is sickening. And this kind of hypocrisy is why voters are turning away from the Democratic Party.
a sad democrat
#13 Posted by Cal, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 03:32 AM
Yes, it's nauseating because the only controversial thing Sarah Palin has ever done is that sign. The sign exists alone without any further context like Sarah Palin being a public figure known for hunting or Sarah Palin being a paranoiac bomb thrower with her comments about "palin' around with terrorists" or "death panels" or Sarah Palin....
Man I'm nauseated just talking about the whole thing. Yes, the left does it too.
I'm sure the DLC slipped a bomb in the mail to Janet Janet Napolitano too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/08/AR2011010800700.html
I'm sure the DLC attacked the Tides foundation and killed George Miller too.
And I know that when Michael Moore says and does objectionable things no one on the right feels he should watch his tone and I'm certain he doesn't need a cadre of bodyguards to protect him and his family.
The left should treat right wing psycho rhetoric the way the right treats left wing objectionable rhetoric, calm and dispassionate with grace.
"Oh, you mean like they did with the Dixie Chicks, Thimbles?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olqn-gVz5K8
Yeah, like that, minus the death threats.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 05:06 AM
The map of targeted congressional races has not been "scrubbed from the website," as you stated. Rather, the entire Take Back The 20 website was shut down after the the midterm election because there was no reason for SarahPAC to incur the expense of keeping it active.
Gov. Palin's Facebook post announcing the Take Back The 20 initiative, complete with the aforementioned map, is still up:
http://tinyurl.com/y9s42lq
Some of her detractors are condemning her for "scrubbing" the map, while others are condemning her for "having no decency" by NOT removing it from Facebook. the is the sort of irrationality she has been up against since August, 2008, when the Democrat/Media complex declared war on her. Incredibly, she's still standing.
#15 Posted by Josh Painter, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 10:46 AM
You see, everyone?
The real victim is poor Sarah Palin.
*shakes head in disgust again*
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 01:13 PM
Thank you, Thimbles, for the insult, and helping make my point. I knew you would not like where that was going.
That's because your interest is not in good journalism, but in pressuring journalists to serve your political goals. And regular readers of this site will be familiar with those.
My point was to underscore the point being made by the author, Joel Meares. Much of the early reporting on this tragedy attempted to find some sort of link between this crazed killer and Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. And as more time passes, the more we can see that there is no link. This is simply a deeply disturbed young man who had no coherent political philosophy.
Polls show that the public has strong concerns about the credibility of the national media. This situation, in which many in the MSM rushed to put much of the blame for the AZ shootings on Palin/Tea Party/etc,, is just one more blow to the credibility of the press. A new CBS poll shows that almost 60 percent of Americans say that heated political rhetoric isn't responsible for the shootings.
In other words, the American people simply aren't buying what the media have been trying to sell them.
I understand the temptation for those on the left to exploit this tragedy in order to smear their political opponents and to claim they are somehow responsible. It is rather pathetic, and the poll I mention is one sign that the American people aren't buying it.
I think Maeres is rightfully warning fellow journalists to be cautious about playing this game, though much of the damage is done.
#17 Posted by frank, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 01:49 PM
So Jim Saul, calling people teabaggers ( a sexual reference) and wingnuts (a slur suggesting mental instability) is OK though? Grow up and come in from the playground. Name calling is for children. If you disagree with the TEA Party agenda then make your case, and I'm sure many of them will be willing to make their's. Name calling in lieu of actual argument is not befitting adult intellectual discourse.
#18 Posted by Red Phillips, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 06:15 PM
"That's because your interest is not in good journalism, but in pressuring journalists to serve your political goals. And regular readers of this site will be familiar with those."
Project much? You're the one who took a Keith Olbermann insult and spun it into a threat. (so what if she was called a bag of meat? Was he instigating his viewers to eat her?)
Again, there is a big difference between name calling or using an aphorism like "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." (so was Obama literally saying that the republicans were bringing knives to fight democrats, and that democrats were prepared to shoot in self defense? Wow, the NRA must think Obama's politician of the year. This is stupid.) and encouraging followers that the world is ending, that schools are indoctrinating children to sing Obama songs, that Obama is bringing socialist fascism to America with a happy face, that Obama has death camps in which he's planning to throw your grandmother, that Obama is taking your guns and your little dog too, and the basis this paranoid conspiratorial culture are the rantings of Beck and Limbaugh, the video edits of Andrew Breitbart, the prejudice of Pam Geller, and the general psychosis of the 30% of the country that supported republicans through 8 years of Bush and then started throwing bricks through windows over Mitt Romney's health care reform.
*takes a breath*
If you consider pushing journalists to challenge this a "political goal" then I guess your accusation is accurate; I am pushing journalists to tell the truth. I'm sorry if you prefer the alternative.
"Much of the early reporting on this tragedy attempted to find some sort of link between this crazed killer and Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. And as more time passes, the more we can see that there is no link. "
First, what I read was that we didn't now why this kid did what he did. We knew that the politicians in Arizona expressed fears over tea party demonstrations, and Sarah Palin's sign specifically, before one of them was shot. And they had good reason to be worried
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers
This isn't the first recent vigilante incident in America, this isn't the first recent vigilante attack in Arizona, this isn't even the first time a young girl got shot in during an attack in recent memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores
This is only the most recent and most prominent. Like I said before, do you really want to get into body counts?
The right wing benefits from introducing falsehoods and paranoia into public discourse. Some people react by holding violent signs at protests, other people brandish guns. Is it too much to ask that the right wing idiots tone down the conspiratorial fantasies that are responsible for getting people killed? Too much?
I guess so and I reiterate, you suck.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 08:25 PM