By David French
Thursday, June 15, 2017
The New York Times
published its editorial in response to yesterday’s vicious, violent, and
explicitly political attack on Congressional Republicans — an attack that
wounded four and left Representative Steve Scalise in critical condition in a
Washington-area hospital — and it is abhorrent. It is extraordinarily cruel,
vicious, and — above all — dishonest. The editorial doesn’t just twist the
truth to advance the board’s preferred narratives; it may even be libelous, a
term I choose carefully.
Yesterday’s shooter, James Hodgkinson, left little doubt
as to his political leanings and his political motivations. He was a vocal
Bernie Sanders supporter, belonged to Facebook groups with names such as
“Terminate the Republican Party” and “The Road to Hell is paved with
Republicans,” and he was constantly sharing angry anti-GOP messages and memes.
Before opening fire, he reportedly asked whether the players on the baseball
field were Democrats or Republicans. In other words, all available signs point
to an act of lone-wolf progressive political terror.
How does the Times
deal with this evil act? The editorial begins innocently enough, describing the
shooting and even forthrightly outlining Hodgkinson’s politics. But then, the
board says this — and it’s worth quoting at length:
Was this attack evidence of how
vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee
Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding
Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old
girl, the link to political incitement
was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee
circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19
other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.
Conservatives and right-wing media
were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and
crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords
attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of
decency that they ask of the right. (Emphasis added.)
Let’s be blunt. In its zeal to create moral equivalencies
and maintain a particular narrative about the past, the Times flat-out lied. There is simply no “link to political
incitement” in Loughner’s murderous acts. The man was a paranoid schizophrenic
who first got angry at Gabby Giffords years
before Palin published her map.
The Times
editorial board didn’t have far to go to understand Loughner’s motivations; it
could have asked . . . New York Times
reporters. In an excellent reported piece published just days after the Tucson
shootings, the paper described Loughner’s mental illness and nonsensical
political beliefs in disturbing detail. For example, as he descended into the
depths of his disease, he not only spewed bizarre and incoherent political
ideas, he rejected conventional math and grammar. In short, he broke with
reality:
As he alienated himself from his
small clutch of friends, grew contemptuous of women in positions of power and
became increasingly oblivious to basic social mores, Mr. Loughner seemed to
develop a dreamy alternate world, where the sky was sometimes orange, the grass
sometimes blue and the Internet’s informational chaos provided refuge.
He had crazy left-wing views. He had crazy right-wing
views. He was a conspiracy theorist who hated George Bush. One
friend described him as liberal. (That’s another New York Times news link, by the way.) If you want to get a better
idea of his thoughts, here’s an exact quote from one of his online screeds:
My Final Thoughts: Jared Lee
Loughner!
Most people, who read this text,
forget in the next 2 second!
The population of dreamers in the
United States of America is less than 5%!
If 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,098,601,978,618
is the year in B.C.E. then the previous year is
987,123,478,961,876,341,234,098,601,978,619 B.C.E.
987,123,478,961,876,341,234,098,601,978,618
is the year in B.C.E.
Therefore, the previous year of
987,123,478,961,876,341,234,098,601,978,619 B.C.E.
If B.C.E. years are unable to start
then A.D.E. years are unable to begin.
Is there any evidence, any at all, that Palin’s map
incited Loughner? Incitement is a legally significant term. According to the
Supreme Court, it’s speech that’s directed to “producing imminent lawless
action.” There is no credible argument that Sarah Palin incited anyone, much less Loughner, to kill her political
opponents. The only “imminent” actions she hoped to incite were votes and
political donations.
Palin is a public figure, and that means that newspapers
rightly have a wide berth to attack her, to criticize her, and to make even the
wildest arguments about her. They do not, however, have the right to
intentionally lie about her. Given the body of evidence now available about
Loughner, including evidence reported in their own paper, what is the editorial
board’s defense?
Let’s not forget, this is the same editorial board that,
one year ago, laid blame on Republican Christian politicians for an Orlando
terrorist attack by a confessed Islamic jihadist. Omar Mateen swore allegiance
to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but the Times
editors believed (again, without any evidence) that he was inspired in part by
Republican objections to granting men access to women’s restrooms.
In addition to lying about Palin, the Times couldn’t resist yet another
nonsensical attack on gun rights — claiming that “studies” have shown that
armed citizens would “probably” kill or wound innocent bystanders in the effort
to stop the killer. Which studies? In fact, we have considerable
real-world experience showing that armed citizens can stop mass shootings
without harming innocent civilians.
It’s frankly bizarre, given the current political
climate, that the Times would reach
back to attack Palin. After all, white supremacists have recently killed a
number of innocent Americans. Why not condemn the surge in white-supremacist
violence? The Times, however, seems
desperate to discredit conventional, mainstream conservatism by tying it to the
most heinous and violent acts. Thus, the editorial board peers into Omar
Mateen’s jihadist mind and finds visions of Republican transgender bathroom
bills. It rewrites the well-known history of the Tucson tragedy. Even when
jihadists or progressives attack, it finds a way to slice and dice members of
the GOP.
Keep in mind, this editorial didn’t come from a deranged Daily Kos commenter, but rather from
America’s most important and prestigious newspaper. It’s a disgrace. On a day
when Democratic members of Congress united with their Republican colleagues to
unequivocally condemn an act of vicious violence, the Times chose to advance its political narrative. Truth be damned.
Unity be damned. There is no excuse. The editorial board should retract its
editorial and apologize. America’s most influential paper has unequivocally and
inexcusably put politics over principle. Shame on the New York Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment