It has been difficult to ignore the story of the Arizona shooting because the national media has plastered it everywhere unendingly. Although indeed an alarming tragedy, the national media has given the Arizona shooting an unnatural level of attention. This is because the national media's outlook is very government-centered. The federal government is one thing all Americans have in common, afterall. These things aside, some in left-wing media are guilty of exploitation, brainwashing, and hypocrisy.
1. Exploitation
Both Liberal and Conservative National Media are exploiting the tragic incident and are reaping profits from high viewer/listener ratings. But let's not forget that the Left first politicized the event by trying to scapegoat the right. Indeed, it was leftists who started the ongoing fight over the incident. In the end, the losers are (1) the shooting victims whose deaths have been politicized (2) the viewer at home who could have spent his time learning about a news item more relevant to his own well-being.
Video from Reason TV
2. Mind Control
Any reasonable person knows that political rhetoric does not necessarily cause someone to take drugs, become insane, and to shoot people as Jared Loughner did. Nevetheless, some leftwingers have continually tried to insinuate that talk radio, the Tea Party, etc., somehow indirectly caused Loughner to do what he did. I believe certain members of the Left are consciously trying to get their media audience to associate the shooting with Palin, Arizona's immigration policies, etcetera by mentioning them together--over and over. Thus, they are trying to create a psychological negative association in the minds of audience members between conservative things and the shooting; and I believe this is a form of deceit, if not brainwashing. So for instance, when conservatives or independents think about Arizona, they'll also remember being blamed for a shooting they had nothing to do with, and this may induce them to avoid discussion of Arizona's immigration policies, the tea party, etcetera.
For many progressive radicals, when it comes to political tactics, the ends justify the means. For them, although slandering one's political opponents may be wrong, it serves the greater purpose of squelching opposition to the glorious progressive agenda. Moreover, certain leftist media outlets have repeated their suggestion that the right is indirectly responsible for the shooting incident--in effect repeating a lie often enough so that people will believe it.
Even if Loughner had been an avid tea partier, it would still be obvious that few, if any tea partiers take hallucinogens, become insane, and want to shoot people. It's not exactly part of the tea party way of life. Moreover, innocent advocates for liberty or for regulation of immigration should not have to answer for the actions of every single person who may share some of their beliefs. Furthermore, one would not say that all followers of the Mohamed ought to answer for the deeds of a few members jihadist tribal sects--the ones typically responsible for honor killings and suicide bombings. Left-wing outlets would never try to smear Mohammedans--probably because most of them vote Democrat.
Chump conservatives will be affected by the Left's baseless accusations and psychological intimidation, and such chumps will become more timid in their rhetoric. They will not realize that when progressives say "the rhetoric needs to be toned down on both sides", they really mean to say "people should be more docile as the progressive agenda is advanced." "Civility" is a code-word for "Docililty". Many media progressives will no doubt want "Obamalot" to be remembered as a time of peace and harmony.
I must concede that not all of the leftward media has played the blame game. To my knowledge Anderson Cooper did not indulge in it.
Finally, some conservative women believe the reason certain leftists smeared Palin (regarding the Loughner incident) is that the Left is "afraid of her." I do not believe that the Left has any reason to fear Palin because she is unelectable, since she is unpopular with Moderates and Independents. Thus, if Republicans nominate Palin for president in 2012, it would bode well for Progressives. Conservatives ought to be the ones who're afraid of Palin.
3. Hypocrisy
One liberal pundit said frugal fiscal conservatives are reason Loughner was not institutionalized, insinuating that there's some lack of funding for mental hospitals. But according to Mona Charen in her book Do-Gooders, it was liberal psychologists of the 1960s who weakened the ability of the government to commit mentally ill people to institutions. Because of liberal policies, she says, the number of institutionalized people dropped from about 550,000 in the 50's to 70,000* in the early 90's--and this doesn't even take into account population growth. Moreover, there's tons of dough being thrown around by the government, but the funds allocated for mental health are going toward more temporary, halfway house type places rather than toward long-term asylums. I'm do not claim to know whether Loughner would have been institutionalized before he could hurt anyone if laws were the same as they were in the 50's, but if so, I still wouldn't blame liberal psychologists from the sixties for the deaths of Loughner's victims, since they obviously would not have intended for their policies to free up the criminally insane to harm others. In this way I am charitable, unlike some left-wing media.
In the end, the story is about one man plummiting into insanity and doing something bad--nothing more. The media shouldn't publish the views of these stupid liberal smear artists even if it brings higher ratings.
In closing, the video below seems informative.
_________
*This is a rounded number.
No comments:
Post a Comment