On violence...
Jan. 9th, 2011 10:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpOn my friends list this morning I read speculation that Sarah Palin's political aspirations died yesterday in Arizona, a result of "putting cross-hairs over Gifford." On the one hand, this kind of thinking really surprises me.
Advancing the idea of there being some kind of discernible link between the kind of violence that occurred yesterday and anything politicians say (whether they refer to "Second Amendment remedies" or go around saying "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun") sounds like an awful reach to me to start with. Moving beyond that reach to link talk of placing a political opponent "in the crosshairs" with actual violence against that opponent seems to me akin to linking the appearance of comets in the night sky to ensuing crop failure.
Both political parties have, in the past, routinely used words such as "targeting" accompanied by graphics with bull's-eyes in referring to political opponents. Both. The media also routinely uses military terms when reporting on politics, sports, and so on. Compared with graphic television violence, to which most of the nation is exposed every day, I would be surprised if such rhetoric barely registers.
On the other hand, the speculation about Palin's aspirations isn't very surprising. It should be obvious to anyone with any sense that Palin is the "main enemy" of the talking heads on television news. Hell, if Palin were to do something as inconsequential as win a two-person foot race, the media would loudly report that she came in "next to last."
It will be interesting to see how this all progresses, because in my experience, I've found people tend to not like bullies, which is the role the media appears to be playing in its ongoing treatment of Palin. By their vituperation, they may just be swinging undecideds in Palin's direction.
Cheers...
Advancing the idea of there being some kind of discernible link between the kind of violence that occurred yesterday and anything politicians say (whether they refer to "Second Amendment remedies" or go around saying "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun") sounds like an awful reach to me to start with. Moving beyond that reach to link talk of placing a political opponent "in the crosshairs" with actual violence against that opponent seems to me akin to linking the appearance of comets in the night sky to ensuing crop failure.
Both political parties have, in the past, routinely used words such as "targeting" accompanied by graphics with bull's-eyes in referring to political opponents. Both. The media also routinely uses military terms when reporting on politics, sports, and so on. Compared with graphic television violence, to which most of the nation is exposed every day, I would be surprised if such rhetoric barely registers.
On the other hand, the speculation about Palin's aspirations isn't very surprising. It should be obvious to anyone with any sense that Palin is the "main enemy" of the talking heads on television news. Hell, if Palin were to do something as inconsequential as win a two-person foot race, the media would loudly report that she came in "next to last."
It will be interesting to see how this all progresses, because in my experience, I've found people tend to not like bullies, which is the role the media appears to be playing in its ongoing treatment of Palin. By their vituperation, they may just be swinging undecideds in Palin's direction.
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-09 10:08 pm (UTC)Arizona has developed a reputation as a bastion of right-wing conservatives. I find myself wondering if it s even more true than I had thought. Each of the states has a certain reputation as to political bent, whether deservedly or not. We read in this morning's paper about a resident of northern Idaho that is expecting the apocalypse this April, for example. I find myself thinking, hmm, yes, Idaho. Figures. imagining Idaho as a bastion of end-of-the-world types. And so it goes with Arizona.
As for the gun sights depicted over areas where Palin or anybody else might like to "take out" an adversary, I would suggest that in the future this sort of symbolism may come to be considered in bad taste. (Thanks in large part to incidents such as the current one.)
I do think that normal people would understand that it is simply a cutesy target. But I feel it's the unhinged fringe members of our society who will take this far too literally.
But then again, you know how it is often said that anybody who would kill someone else is obviously crazy and ought to get an insanity verdict.