Reply With Quote
But, by saying she didn't intend to incite violence infers that's exactly what happened.
I didn't think of violence when I saw the SarahPAC ad or any of the similar graphics issued by the Democrats. If you did, perhaps you should seek counseling.
No confusion. In this case, the lack of evidence when combined with the overwhelming amount of media supposition and assertion of a connection needs to be pointed out. All of the evidence, so far, tends to walk away from there being any influence from right-wing political rhetoric.
The right is pushing the narrative that right-wing political rhetoric caused the shootings in Tucson?
But, by saying she didn't intend to incite violence infers that's exactly what happened.
I didn't think of violence when I saw the SarahPAC ad or any of the similar graphics issued by the Democrats. If you did, perhaps you should seek counseling.
hearsay is not evidence.
They're damn sure pushing the narrative that the left thinks it did. The defensiveness and victim status claimed by the right since moments after it happened has made the association as clearly as anything else has.
About the congresswoman being shot...
Maybe its the cynic in me that feels badly for her and her family, but doesnt feel a damn thing for politicians who might actually be killed for their actions as lawmakers.
In my dream world, there would be three sets of laws. One for the military, one for a citizen and another for elected/appointed public officials. The penalties of law for public officials would be extreme compared to a citizen's.
Flame away.
You act as though we're writing for people in the future who know nothing about the cir stances of this incident.
The gunman was a ing nut and had been since long before Palin bombed on Couric, much less released an under-cooked political poster.
As for counseling... you buy, I'll fly, buddeh!
Meanwhile, the New York Times makes an admission...
Granted it took them several paragraphs -- during which they talked about reporting the early error that Giffords had been killled -- but, come clean (sort of) they did:
In other words, we had a prepared narrative that right-wing political rhetoric was the cause of violence and ran with it.The Times’s day-one coverage in some of its Sunday print editions included a strong focus on the political climate in Arizona and the nation. For some readers — and I share this view to an extent — placing the violence in the broader political context was problematic.
C. Wenk, a reader in Alexandria, Va., criticized “an egregious rush to judgment in the Times coverage of the Arizona shooting, specifically aimed at linking the shooting to various conservative or Republican political rhetoric.”
A second reader, Kevin O’Donnell of Greenbrae, Calif., saw it as a case of The Times jumping too quickly: “I understand the larger point about coarse speech raising the potential for violence. By offering that debate within hours of events, doesn’t The Times risk starting at the conclusion end of the argument?”
The Times had a lot of company, as news organizations, commentators and political figures shouldered into an unruly scrum battling over whether the political environment was to blame. Meanwhile, opportunities were missed to pick up on evidence — quite apparent as early as that first day — that Jared Lee Loughner, who is charged with the shootings, had a mental disorder and might not have been motivated by politics at all.
So why does a story get framed this way? Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit — one of relating new facts to an existing storyline — and also as a reflex of news organizations that are built to handle some topics well, and others less well.
Jerry Ceppos, dean of the journalism school at the University of Nevada, Reno, said journalists’ impulse to quickly impose a frame on a story is “genetic.”
“Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,” he said. “Today’s hyper-deadlines, requiring journalists to report all day long and all night long, made that genetic disposition even more dominant.”
(Leaky underpants shd be changed.)
Not surprising given similar arguments were put forth after the Killeen killer, and the murder of Dr. Tiller and the Holocaust museum guard in DC. That's the trouble with the 24/7 media schedule... nobody does research because they'd rather be wrong than get scooped. But it's always something in this country -- if it isn't right-wing radio it's heavy metal or gangsta movies or porn, or or or.
a narrative which I'm sure, had absolutely nothing to do with this:
In other words, we had a prepared narrative that right-wing political rhetoric was the cause of violence and ran with it.
Pitbull disagrees with you again.
"The graphic that was used was crosshairs..."
-Sarah Palin on Hannity 1/17/2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJV2hE9u1kw
Looks like the cover story reached the peasants before it reached governor half-wit.
That's a legitimate point.
Corrected: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4501208/e...in-on-hannity/
Are you literate?
So she says it was. She also explains the root of them pretty good. Now we can debate angles of this, but the bottom line is this. It doesn't matter what the truth is. You lib s will find any thing to hate her over.
So who is wrong, Palin or you?
You could at least admit one of you is wrong.
The truth is this:
Palin used crosshairs in the graphic.
The representative who was shot previously complained about the crosshairs.
Some bags tried to tie the graphic directly to the shooting.
Palin distastefully whined about the attempts by the bags to tie the graphic directly to the shooting.
Palin's approval numbers fell and her disapproval ratings rose in the wake of her whining.
And here we are.
Do we need to go into that?So who is wrong, Palin or you?
You could at least admit one of you is wrong.
They are map symbols for location. She was wrong, either not knowing, or by design. If she said they were map symbols, then the left would still hate her. Sometimes, admitting to a lie is less painful. Gets things done and over with. Which the truth is, beats me. I see it as still being either possibility.
Like I said. No matter the truth, lib s will hate her.
This is a new gambit: defending Palin by throwing her under the bus.
I think the point is, it doesn't matter what they were; the SarahPAC ad didn't cause any violence -- nor did the similar Democratic ads to which Palin referred in the interview.
Obviously, if Ms. Palin says they were cross hairs, who are we to argue?
Yes, we do.
I just wanted you to admit it, to be honest.Like I said, evenn if they were targets, the only thing I think Palin might be guilty of is poor taste in her symbols. (And given the political climate, it's not like she was the only one. Tea partiers seem more explicit with their violent rhetoric, but there's plenty of examples from all parties.)
In this case, your "we" would probably be WC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions