A question I posted in April 2010: do you think RW media tries to cause violence on purpose?

[Kievan Rus]

I initially posted this in April 2010, where I asked if right-wing media members are trying to get people to engage in violence on purpose. Undoubtedly one of the things I was thinking of was Palin's target map which I had seen on DU after the healthcare debate, in addition to all of the vandalism following the passage of health care reform a few weeks earlier in March.

Even in the wake of the recent tragedy in Tucson, I'm still not entirely sure if right-wing pundits are trying to deliberately cause unstable people to become violent with their angry, eliminationist rhetoric, or if they simply don't care and are just trying to be as outrageous as possible in order to drive ratings up.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8157356

For as much as I can't stand the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing gasbags, I don't believe that right-wing talking heads and figures are inciting violence *on purpose*.

The way I look at it, I think a lot of these guys are in it solely for the money and ratings. I seriously doubt Glenn Beck the person is nearly as crazy as his Faux News persona is. While I thought he was out there when he was with Headline News, I've noticed that his behavior got a lot more out there as soon as he got his own show on Faux. And he realizes the crazier he acts, the more people that will watch his show. While Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly seem to truly be unapologetically racist, misogynist homophobes with little empathy and blind support for the status quo, they also realize the more controversy they generate, the more people will listen to them.

It has been common on the left-wing blogosphere and on DU for posters to claim right-wing personas such as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, so forth and so on, are trying to incite the crazies to commit acts of violence on purpose. I seriously doubt that. They would have very little to gain from purposefully whipping people like that up, and A LOT to lose.

However, I DO believe that some of these right-wing personas have been rather careless with their rhetoric. They fail to understand (or don't care) that not everybody who watches or listens to their programs understands the difference between literal talk and hyperbole. Some of their listeners don't get what a metaphor is. They fail to realize that some of their more incendiary rhetoric has the potential to whip up mentally unstable viewers who don't understand what hyperbole is...or take one of their many paranoid screeds WAY too seriously.

A good case in point would be what happened with Richard Poplawski, the Pittsburgh cop-killer. Shortly after President Obama was sworn in, many right-wing media outlets began going on and on about a nonexistent "Obama gun ban." Never once did candidate Obama say ANYTHING about banning guns while on the campaign trail, but that obviously meant nothing to the right wing noise machine. Poplawski, who was rather paranoid and known to hold vicious racist and anti-Semitic beliefs, believed wholeheartedly in such nonsense about an Obama gun ban. On March 19, Glenn Beck aired on his program something about Obama planning to take guns away, and I can distinctly remember other right wing gasbags going on about the same crap in late March of last year. Right-wing blogs and newspapers were filled with "Obama gun ban" paranoia. On Saturday, April 4, 2009, the Pittsburgh Police were called to his Stanton Heights residence by his mother following a domestic dispute. Paranoid and fearing the arriving officers were going to take away his guns, Poplawski armed himself with an AK-47 assault rifle and opened fire on the arriving officers, killing Officers Paul Scuillo II and Stephen Mayhle almost instantly. Another officer, Eric Kelly, died upon responding to the ambush, while another two officers were injured.

When the right wing media and the talking heads went on and on about this "Obama gun ban" nonsense, was it their intent to stir violence and civil unrest? Absolutely not. They were simply looking for ratings, increased book sales, and ways to get their base all whipped up. Yet, they failed to understand that such incendiary, paranoid rhetoric has the potential to push unstable persons that are already predisposed to violence or don't understand what a metaphor is, over the edge. It's not the intent of right-wing fearmongers, but rather a careless but ultimately UNINTENDED side-effect from the fearmongering and paranoid talk.

[PDJane]

1. Yes. They do.

[Drale]

2. Yes they are trying to kill any opposition

to their profits and without the liberals they are free to do what ever they want to make money because in the end that is whats its all about to them money.

[defendandprotect]

3. Yes -- absolutely -- right wing needs political violence to rise ....

in act, since the day they killed JFK and took our "people's" government, they've

been making every effort to make this a violent society -- Drug War was a major

avenue for them to create FEAR of one citizen for anohter -- FEAR of youth taking

drugs -- FEAR of armed citizens while GOP/NRA pushed guns for everyone!!

Look at the guy who ended up shooting a young man at Halloween who was simply asking

for directions!! FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR --

Like 9/11, always for benefit of the right wing --

You can do a lot to destroy democracy behind wars, as well -- Patriot Act, Homeland

Security -- on and on!

[kestrel91316]

4. Of course they are. I thought that was obvious.

[somone]

5. Yes. They knew what they were doing

[timtom]

6. Of course!

They are all about winning, no matter the cost.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. I think media of any partisanship tries to upset & motivate people.

Sometimes imbalaced people who become upset turn to violence.
It can certianly be said that there are irresponsible things to say to upset people as well.

[DCKit]

8. Great. So next week, all the old broads on "The View" will be dressed as strippers.

Then they'll replace them with actual strippers who have more on-the-ball than Elizabeth Hasslebeck, and we'll have another source of factual news.

Sounds like a plan.

[JoePhilly]

9. Yes. They shake the crazy tree to see if a few nuts will fall out.