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: 2011-01-10 07:50 am (UTC)I don't think there is any link between what politicians have said in the past and what happened yesterday - or at least I'm assuming the guy that committed this atrocity was mental unstable and not using anything remotely like logic.
I do thin Palin's career as a Presidential hopeful ended. Why? Not because she influenced the actions. Rather her generated persona has been primarily this gun-tottin' pioneering woman from the 'edge of civilization'. Clearly, this has won her a lot of support in the past. However, suddenly that persona and the 'reload/target/second amendment' type rhetoric is....'um....politically incorrect?? So, the questions becomes can she reinvent herself, will the media and her followers let her reinvent herself?
I'm not sure she can. Its politics. Its all about perception and being in the right/wrong place at a point in time. 'Drill baby drill' caught some followers, but then the leak in the Gulf also made that a statement most politicians would not like to be associated with.
Politicians and Presidential hopefuls come and go. I think Palin might have actually been a contender. However, her political opponents now have too much 'ammo' (!) to use against her.
The above aside. I hope this tragedy makes politicians - on all sides - start behaving with a bit more respect for their opponents, and cease with the overtly violent rhetoric. AS I say I don't think this had any connection with the events of yesterday, but overal its time to tone things down a bit.