![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On violence...
Jan. 9th, 2011 10:43 amOn 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...
