Blaming Sarah

There is a school of American political press hacquettry in which the ability to see both sides of every issue is prized far above truth and logic - call it the "opinions differ on the shape of the Earth" school. Howard Kurtz, a charter member, opines today that we really need to resist the temptation to think that the assassinations in Arizona might have something to do with militarized "bullets or ballots" rhetoric being pushed by the right-wing media and many politicians. We know the rest - gunman was deranged, his politics were muddled, blah, blah, blah.

Kurtz throws in this:

Let's be honest: Journalists often use military terminology in describing campaigns. We talk about the air war, the bombshells, targeting politicians, knocking them off, candidates returning fire or being out of ammunition. So we shouldn't act shocked when politicians do the same thing. Obviously, Palin should have used dots or asterisks on her map. But does anyone seriously believe she was trying to incite violence?


Wrong question Howard! I don't think drunk drivers are trying to kill people - but they do, by wantonly and recklessly attempting to drive when they aren't capable. Sarah was trying to fire up her troops, and she recklessly and wantonly used a violent metaphor - Giffords in a rifle scope sight - to do it. None of the journalistic metaphors mentioned - stupid though they may be - has the same kind of threat of personal violence.

The fact that militaristic metaphors have a history in the US isn't much comfort either - the US also has a history of political assassination and attempted assassination that is a real blight on our republic.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

Uneasy Lies The Head

We Call it Soccer