The question just begs to be asked: Do Republicans/Conservatives really NOT understand the concept of irony, or does chronic hypocrisy just lead to a form of blindness? Just watch the following two short segments from Messrs. O’Reilly and Hannity, and if you’re not laughing too hard, come on back for further detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMVP6sr1XI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HThHKmZ2zQg&feature=related
Weren’t these the same bozos who were trying to blow off the whole (illegal) wiretapping, in violation of FISA laws, as much ado about nothing? Wasn’t THAT all just a bunch of L-L-L-Liberal blathering? And, wasn’t the argument at the time: “If you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.”? Hmmm! Now, I generally don’t watch these clowns all that often, and looking at Karl Rove (aka Baby Huey) just makes me physically ill, but I’d be willing to bet that these guys – just like some of my more conservative friends/relatives/coworkers – tried to argue that: the U.S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. So, this being the case, what is the major difference between some pencil-necked Federal geek listening into your phone calls or intercepting/reading your e-mails, under that very broad guise of “National Security”, and some pimply faced dweeb – probably living in his mom’s basement – hacking into someones Yahoo! e-mail account? If Sarah Palin didn’t do anything wrong . . . then she has nothing to worry about. Now, does she? Are they afraid that there could be something damning in her e-mails? Troopergate bombshells? A possible list of books she was looking to ban? Correspondences with some Alaska Secessionists? Or, perhaps some kind of Rovian strategy e-mails, detailing how EVERYTHING in her life fit into their plan to win over the evangelical Christian fundamentalists, who had had strong reservations as to whether John McCain sufficiently met their requirements. Hmmm!
Now, check out the actual Gawker site, who had the chops to “publish” what this “anonymous” hacker came up with. Scan down and read some of the comments that these Palin backers wrote in:
http://gawker.com/5051621/gawker-should-be-imprisoned-forever-says-everyone-except-lawyers
Wow! What a classy bunch. You know, for the party that believes in “family values” and the sanctity of man-woman relationships, they certainly have a strange fixation on a certain part of the human anatomy, the acts of sodomy, and issues of violence. I’m sure that the Gawker people cherry-picked many/most of these comments, but still . . . C’mon!
When they can’t dictate the terms they certainly DO seem to get their panties all in a twist, don’t they? Isn’t all this faux OUTRAGE just peachy?
Your Uncle Rave
Unclerave's Wordy Weblog 
The Media’s Denial
Published January 14, 2011 Commentary , Current Events , Language , Media , Politics , Race Leave a CommentTags: Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity
Image via Wikipedia
Jared Loughner is a mentally disturbed individual. There seems to be a consensus on that point. But the questions of why Gabby Giffords, and why now, seem to be less important to our national corporate media. To the extent that they’re bending over backwards trying to downplay, dismiss, and even deny that cause and effect might have come into play.
On the Today Show, Monday morning, after showing the clip of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik voicing his opinion that “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous”, Matt Lauer took exception to these words and said that he didn’t think there was any cause and effect here. This saddened and angered me, because before even knowing what might have been Jared’s motivation we’re being told that there is no cause and effect. He (Jared) was/is just a paranoid nut-job. End of story. And then, seconds later, the lovely and lanky Ann Curry is fawning all over Matt Lauer, agreeing with him. Meredith and Al also nodding their heads in approval. What was up with that? Is Matt Lauer THAT powerful that he can’t be disagreed with? Or . . . did this directive come down from the head honchos at GE, and were they all just playing their parts? At least Charlie Rose raised his eyebrows and questioned the assertions of Ezra Klein, who also said that there was no cause and effect. And, even Diane Sawyer asking Sheriff Dupnik, in disbelief, “That it is somehow linked???” Why is there so much resistance to to a very plausible possibility? Dupnik didn’t name any names, or cite any specific rhetoric. But boy, was there ever swift condemnation of his words. And where did this come from? From the right-wing pundits, whose very bread and butter is vitriolic rhetoric. Now, the sheriff is forced to respond to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sara Palin, because they are threatened by his opinion.
The corporate media loves the tawdry, tragic and sensationalistic. That’s what grabs the attention. That’s what sells. Careful contemplation, as to what are the underlying causes, is besides the point to them. With the Jared Loughner case I’ve even heard some reporters say: We may never know. Really? Is the guy dead? Did the police cut his tongue out? Why deny cause and effect? And why set up the premise that ‘we may never know’ what his motivation was? They will milk the story for all that it’s worth, without really telling us anything new or substantive. They need to be ready to jump onto the next shocker of the moment. What seems to matter most to the corporate media is the hype, the sincerity (acting job) of its anchor people, and – bottom line – the ratings.
None of us live in a vacuum. To a large extent, we are all products of our environment. This is true of the sane, and the not so sane. When the Glenn Becks of this country say that “Barack Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people” and that he’s a “racist”, or the Bill O’Reillys and Sean Hannitys keep saying President Obama is a “socialist”, it resonates with all sorts of people. When Sara Palin puts out her Congressional map with gun-sight cross-hairs on certain districts, and says things like “don’t retreat, reload” most people pick up on the shooting references . . . one way or another. The sane, but gullible, eat it up and regurgitate it. Who knows what kind of catalyst these words of violence and hatred might be to the not so sane! We do know that this very kind of rhetoric has inspired some to kill abortion doctors over the years. So, why be so dismissive, of the effects that words of hate might have, in this instance?
No one is saying there is a straight line, from any specific piece of vitriolic and hateful rhetoric, to the actions in Tucson last Saturday. We don’t know, yet, why Jared Loughner did what he did, and why he targeted Gabby Giffords. Even if his lawyers go with an insanity defense it’s very likely that we will, eventually, know those whys. To completely rule out the possibility of some kind of cause and effect, at such an early stage of the story, by our corporate media, is more than irresponsible, it’s downright . . . reprehensible.
YUR
Related Articles