“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
So once said Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff. And it appears that the press agrees with him, if the AFP article, "Obama faces tough test in Arizona eulogy," and numerous others currently in circulation are any indication.
It starts out, “President Barack Obama faces a moment fraught with risk but shrouded in political opportunity when he leads a national memorial service for the dead of the Arizona shooting tragedy.”
Let me stop it right there and ask a very important question: Do these people have no shame at all?
People just died, a nine-year old among them. And they want to discuss how this tragedy could become a bright spot for one of the most egotistical, entitled brats the U.S. may or may not have ever produced?
I don’t care who died or who’s benefitting; that’s one of the most heartless things I have ever read. The Mr. Stephen Collinson who wrote it should be severely ashamed of himself right now.
He – and every other person who publishes that speculation in a positive light – are no better than members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who picket at funerals and have announced their vile presence at the funeral of little Miss Christina Green’s, the nine-year old who’s death is an “opportunity” for President Obama.
There are no polite words to express the kind of filth Mr. Collinson has stooped to in just the first line alone, much less the rest of the article. It is a frightening kind of creature who can see such personal gain in the death of a child and five others.
Yet that’s exactly what the entire liberal left is doing.
I have to wonder if they’d feel so altruistic if it was their child lying in a casket.
For all I know, they might just be inhuman enough to react exactly the same way.
Different Subject, Exceedingly Different Tone
Compare the hopeful beginning of Mr. Collinson’s article to that of one of his colleagues in the Associated Press, Adam Gellar. The subject material, this time, is not a media favorite, to say the least.
“When Sarah Palin accused journalists and pundits of ‘blood libel’ in the wake of the deadly Arizona shootings, she reached deep into one of medieval history’s most sordid chapters to make her point.”
See a difference? It’s almost like the general media is something less than fair and balanced. But let’s not jump to such hasty conclusions based off a single line. Instead, let’s read more…
“The term ‘blood libel’ is not well known, but it is highly charged – a direct reference to a time when many European Christians blamed Jews for kidnapping and murdering Christian children to obtain their blood. Jews were tortured and executed for crimes they did not commit, emblematic of anti-Semitism so virulent that some scholars recoiled Wednesday at Palin’s use of the term.”
Hmmm… The continuing text does seem to be fraught with highly emotional language. Mr. Gellar probably could have worded the facts with a little less Hollywood-like tension, but let’s still cut him a break, considering that what he’s describing does sound like a truly disturbing period in time…
“In a video posted to her Facebook page early Wednesday, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate accused the U.S. media of inciting hatred and violence after the shooting that gravely wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Palin has been criticized for marking Giffords’ district with the cross hairs of a gun sight during last fall’s campaign.”
Now, at this point, if he truly wanted to present facts instead of opinion, he should probably mention something about how Sarah Palin wasn’t the only political figure to use shooting imagery during the mid-term elections.
In fact, it might be the responsible thing to do to report that at least one such person – then-Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) – shed the imagery altogether and flat-out said: “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him [now-Republican Governor Rick Scott] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”
And yet Mr. Gellar instead focuses solely on Palin’s much more mild-manner “incivility.”
Further Proof that the Left Is Sick; Very, Very Sick
“’But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible,’ she said.
“But some experts on the history of blood libel took exception to Palin’s use of the term.
“’In her own thinking, I just don’t understand the logical use of this word,’ said Ronnie Hsia, a professor of history at Pennsylvania State University who has written two books about blood libel. ‘I think it’s inappropriate and frankly think if she or her staff know about the meaning of this word, I think it’s insulting to the Jewish people.’
“Said Jerome Chanes, a research fellow at the Center for Jewish Studies at the City University of New York: ‘It’s a classic case of, I don’t know what you want to call it, semantic corruption.’
“Palin’s aides did not immediately respond to an e-mail Wednesday.”
The article continues from there with further quoted criticism and explanation of the criticism before finally ending with these four begrudging paragraphs:
“Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a written statement that it was inappropriate to blame Palin for the shooting and that she had the right to defend herself against such criticism.
“‘Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase ‘blood libel,’’ said Foxman, whose organization fights anti-Semitism. ‘While the term ‘blood libel’ has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain Jewish history.’
“Matt Goldfish, a professor of Jewish and European history at Ohio State, said Palin’s usage of the term led him to believe she did not know its history, but that he did not think many people would find it offensive.
“’The combination of the words, blood and libel, obviously kind of ring up together,’ Goldfish said. ‘And you can imagine somebody who’s obviously heard the phrase in their distant past have it come up on their radar screen.’”
They’re Not Stupid (Probably). They’re Just Corrupt Beyond Belief
Any journalist can tell you that when writing an article, you put the important information first, largely because people have short attention spans and quite likely won’t read the entire way through.
Somehow, I’m quite sure that Mr. Gellar knows that quite well. I’m also sure he understands that you can strongly influence somebody’s opinion depending on where and how you place information. For instance, if you bombard readers with repeated negative facts in the first 13 out of 17 paragraphs, they’re probably going to focus much more on that than any positive or semi-positive tidbits you throw in at the end.
Let’s face it though. The media would tear Sarah Palin apart if she gave up everything and became the next Mother Theresa. And they’d still support Obama if he threw off the tattered cloak of civility he wears and became the next Stalin.
The majority of them lost their passion for the truth – and their humanity – a long, long time ago.