Ed Morrissey: The Shame — and Hypocrisy — of CNN

Ed Morrissey, has written a thoughtful piece at Hot Air in which he provides his take on yesterday’s tragedy in Arizona.  In his piece, Morrissey chronicles the transparently asinine attempt by CNN and other left-wing nut cases to exploit the catastrophe by linking the heinous act of a mentally deranged man who, apparently, was one of their own, to Governor Palin, the Tea Party, and any other conservative group they can falsely target with their political opportunism.  Excerpts follow:

Yesterday’s horrific and senseless shooting of more than a dozen people in Tucson, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, provided a look into the biases of much of the American media — and it was not just an ugly sight, but a shamefully hypocritical peek as well, as Byron York points out.  In the last public mass-murder shooting fourteen months ago at Fort Hood, the media spent the first few hours scolding anyone who suggested that it might be an act of terror or that Major Nidal Hasan’s religious beliefs might be relevant before every last fact was exposed…


And as has been repeatedly pointed out in the hours since, Democrats have also used crosshairs and bulls-eye imagery in their own political communications, including one in Arizona “targeting” J. D Hayworth of Arizona.  As far as the “reload” comment, it was less than three years ago that Barack Obama himself talked about responding to political opponents with a gun analogy…


Getting hysterical about the use of war terminology in politics is about as hypocritical as one can possibly get, as Howard Kurtz explained yesterday, especially for journalists covering politics:


It was the Clinton campaign that popularized the term “war room” for the rapid-response team they formed in 1992.  Should we blame Clinton for all subsequent wars, too?  CNN calls its political-news show the “Situation Room,” after the actual national-security response facility in the White House.  Maybe we should blame CNN for inciting wars and violence, too, using their logic?

Getting back to York’s litany of examples, CNN clearly didn’t inadvertently cross the line once, but repeatedly kept insisting on a link between the shooting and political activism on the Right, especially Palin’s:

“But the question is, is there any evidence that the suspected shooter in this particular case was a Sarah Palin fan, read Sarah Palin’s website, was a member on Facebook, watched her tweets, or anything like that?” [Wolf Blitzer asked.]

“None at all,” Yellin responded.  “And there is no evidence that this was even inspired by rage over health care, broadly.  So there is no overt connection between Sarah Palin, health care, and the [shootings].”

Indeed, there is no “overt” or any other sort of connection between Loughner and Palin. If such evidence came to light, it would certainly be news.  But without that evidence, and after a brief caveat, the CNN group went back to discussing the theory that Loughner acted out of rage inspired by Palin and other Republicans.  Conclusions were jumped to all around.

Much more here. I would also point out that the use of standard mapping symbols such as crosshairs and circles is about as new as politics itself, as we noted last March here and here.  Unfortunately, joke “news organizations” like Wolf Blitzer and CNN would never let a few facts get in the way of their political exploitation of a tragedy.  That they are hemorrhaging viewers and losing credibility due to stunts like this eludes them utterly.

(18853 Posts)

Leave a Reply