James Taranto writing at the Wall Street Journal has reminded us of what the New York Times said following the horrific shooting spree at Fort Hood when an American Muslim (whose parents came from the Middle East) slaughtered innocent Americans:
"In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East."
And then Taranto points out the somewhat different response the Times had to the recent shooting, when drawing prejudicial conclusions seemed to be their primary objective. Here's what the Times wrote the day after Tucson:
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.
The Times discussed this act as one of "political violence" when, as it turns out, it was nothing of the sort. Nevertheless, the Times has relentlessly pursued this lying angle, giving space to authors like Paul Krugman who suggest that Arizona stemmed from "eliminationist rhetoric" (something he defines as attempting to eliminate your political opposition's arguments by whatever means necessary) proffered "overwhelmingly from the right."
For proof, Krugman can only come up with an example from Michele Bachmann:
It's hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be "armed and dangerous" without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
This hackneyed journalism is now the hallmark of the New York Times. Krugman intentionally ripped Bachmann's remark from its proper context (as proven here) to try to prove his point. In the end, it's just more slander. And in terms of this type of rhetoric coming "overwhelmingly from the right," consider:
Even before [George W.] Bush was elected president, the kill-Bush talk and imagery started. When Governor Bush was delivering his 2000 convention speech, Craig Kilborn, a CBS talk-show host, showed him on the screen with the words "SNIPERS WANTED." Six years later, Bill Maher, the comedian-pundit, was having a conversation with John Kerry. He asked the senator what he had gotten his wife for her birthday. Kerry answered that he had taken her to Vermont. Maher said, "You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone." (New Hampshire is an early primary state, of course.) Kerry said, "Or I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone." (This is the same Kerry who joked in 1988, "Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle.") Also in 2006, the New York comptroller, Alan Hevesi, spoke to graduating students at Queens College. He said that his fellow Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer, would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it."
The media crossed a line in the 2008 presidential campaign. They made themselves the press wing of the Barack Obama campaign and sought to get him elected at any cost.
They have now crossed yet another line. By spreading lies and misinformation about political conservatives while at the same time excusing and ignoring true violent rhetoric coming from the left side of the political aisle, these leftist media types create the very "climate of hate" they condemn. In fact, they are the climate of hate: seeking to use slander to shame the voices of their opposition into silence, eliminating the free exchange of political ideas, and stirring up the masses (yes, even the deranged elements of those masses) with their irresponsible and untrue ravings.
God forbid someone takes a shot at Sarah Palin, would it not be fair to say that the leftist media will have blood on their hands? How's that for irony?