Sarah Palin Doesn’t Read “All Of ‘Em”
Yesterday we had a fairly spirited discussion about Sarah Palin’s video and the poor choices she made in making the video. At one point I remarked that Palin’s operation seems to be run by rightwing bloggers. Perhaps that isn’t far from the truth. WaPo’s Jonathan Bernstein did an experiment. He read the coverage of this shootings from NRO’s The Corner and found that if you only monitor rightwing news sources you may have had a skewed view of the coverage of the shootings.
But beginning very soon after the shootings, and continuing all week, the major theme has been resistance to what was presented as a systematic effort by liberals and the press to pin the attack on conservatives, and on Sarah Palin in particular. It is not presented as a story about specific politicians or pundits who made poor judgments. Nor is it presented as a reasoned discussion of whether extreme rhetoric can have unintended consequences. No; if you read just The Corner, what you’re left with is the impression that a monolithic, capitalized “Left” has been literally accusing Palin of murder.
…
And if that’s true, then my point isn’t so much that The Corner’s point of view is wrong, but that anyone reading just the Corner, or getting their news from such sources, would wind up with a massively distorted sense of what liberals were saying, and what the press was reporting. The conclusions that they would draw from that version of reality might be internally consistent, but would be radically wrong.
Again, I think that conservatives had several legitimate complaints about specific things that liberals said, or that the press reported. I also think that the pro-extreme-rhetoric position is a legitimate one, if people want to engage in that debate. That’s not what I read at The Corner. Hardly any specific complaints, and little if any argument. Just a repeated drumbeat about a systematic, seemingly monolithic plan being implemented by a “Left” that surely includes every mainstream media outlet in the United States.
Sarah Palin felt it was all about Sarah Palin because that is what the rightwing has been saying.
Tags: Gabrielle Giffords, Right Wing Opposite World, Sarah Palin
Sarah sitting down with her press on Monday. What are the odds she’ll make a bad situation worse?
Do you think she will apologize? Or is it an attempt to explain/excuse her blood libel comment? I’ll bet she’s going on to talk about the threats she’s received.
Apologize? In the vein of I’m sorry if anyone was offended?
Explain? Like she did with Death Panels?
Talk about threats she received? You betcha!
Right wing are now calling for death to liberals! While the Becksters of the world have attempted to tone down their speech (for the moment), the right are using the internet to continue their hate speech. Give it a week and they will back at it? Then what does the left do?
We’ll continue to call them out, anon. Hopefully more people will listen when we point it out.
I’m with this writer http://www.politicususa.com/en/sarah-palin-blood-libel . I think people underestimate the Dominionists.
Some of you may have read my debut post (thanks for the welcomes!) on another thread talking about the need to watch our own language if we want to be effective in criticizing the right for inflammatory rhetoric. You know – make it harder for people to make any sort of ‘both sides do it’ claim. Well at the risk of solidifying the first impression I must have given of being somebody’s mother (Junior, if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all!) I’m about to harp on another pet peeve of mine. Something else we do that weakens our position.
The article referenced here (which I read – very interesting, thank you very much) makes it clear that just a few rash remarks from the left made it possible for right-leaning media to feed the mindset of victimhood, persecution, tyranny and all the other overreaction from the right that is causing so much grief these days.
Why do people do this?! Why make accusations that cannot be supported? It basically comes down to giving them ammunition to use against us. (Too militaristic?) Giving them sticks to beat us with? (Same problem? I’m open to suggestions for effective nonviolent metaphors for future use.) Anyway, again, it weakens our position. We have to be without sin if we want to cast the first stone. (I GIVE UP!)
If we can refrain from doing any of the bad stuff we accuse them of, we’ll have a better chance of changing some minds. And that’s the bottom line isn’t it? We’ll never get through to those who are too far gone, but we should aim to pick off (it’s hopeless) as many as we can from the fringes, shouldn’t we? Giving them reason to dig in (I never realized how pervasive these militaristic terms were) is counterproductive. In discussions I sometimes refer to this sort of thing as poking the bear. DON’T POKE THE BEAR!
“If we can refrain from doing any of the bad stuff we accuse them of…”
…then they will make up “facts” to take up the slack.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, Jane; I actually agree with you. But based on past performance, that’s exactly what they would do.
Trying again to post link…am I stuck in moderation?
http://www.politicususa.com/en/sarah-palin-blood-libel
I hear you. It’s really tempting to sink to the other guy’s level. But that’s what it is. Sinking. And I don’t think it’s helpful. How does making untrue and/or unsupportable statements help when you know there are people just ready to pounce. Then you look dishonest or stupid in addition to being ‘wrong-headed.’
A former work partner and I used to have a little trick we would use to help us deal with the injustice, idiocy, dishonesty and all the other crap you have to deal with on a regular when you’re out in the world. We would remind each other that we needed to ‘RISE ABOVE!’ We kind of did it as a joke but it actually helps. It gives you the little psychological payout of allowing you to feel morally superior! Sometimes you have to play these little games with yourself to get through the day, don’t you?
Ok, now I sound like Pollyanna in addition to somebody’s mother. I promise I’m not always like this.
Yeah. If there is not a handy pretext for the rightwing to nurse it’s victimhood, they will invent one. What the very few actual liberals who are allowed to speak to the media actually say is not important. The Republucans made a choice not to be bound in anyway by reality. It is breakthrough strategy that has been working well for them.
Geezer is right — they will make up stuff to take up the slack. At absolute minimum, the media will just work harder to fulfill the “both sides do it” BS.
we’ll have a better chance of changing some minds
Which I don’t think is even a reasonable goal at this point. Because you won’t change the minds of people who rely on a largely made-up worldview to justify themselves. The world is full of data, facts and objective reality and those who are susceptible to that aren’t going to be especially susceptible to changing their minds. The possibility of suasion presumes that you and your interlocutor can share enough reality to make the changing of minds possible.
Our being nicer won’t change the sense of victimhood, persecution, tyranny and so on that is, frankly, not a reaction to the left — it is specific orthodoxy on the right and specifically meant to reach people whose fears and resentments are available to be used this way.
“Not poking the bear” would mean that the stuff on “pulling the plug on granny” or “death panels” or the litany of misrepresentations that stand in to support the indefensible never gets challenged. And that is just not right. If almost half of Americans think that Obama is Muslim, it is specifically because the right’s insistence on demonizing the President by any means necessary has taken hold and there isn’t much pushback on this.
I’m not especially interested in being in a world where the noise machine that exists entirely to create and disseminate stupid narratives and horrific misinformation gets free rein, while I sit by being “nicer”. Because the thing that I know for sure, is that our Fourth Estate isn’t especially interested in its job of accountability.
No doubt that the pushback can happen in a more civil manner. But I strongly suspect that “Not Poking the Bear” is meant to ask us to just step back and let the foolishness happen. But I want to know where the *civility* is meant to be when in a discussion with people who view you as fundamentally illegitimate in the first place? People who think nothing of trying to make the rest of us live with the altered reality that they’ve accepted? Respect has a very specific meaning, and it is a thing that gets to be earned. Rather than “not poking the bear”, it seems more useful if everyone reminds themselves of what*respect* is defined as and ask themselves if they are doing what they need to do to earn someone else’s respect in this civic space.
ps.
Welcome, Jane!
Wow! I see everyone’s point. BTW, Jane, your 12:25 comment is LOL funny!
Here’s where I’m at. Sorta. I think everyone has become aware of the violent rhetoric (how long they remain aware is anyone’s guess, but I’m thinking weeks, not months) and the next person to use it it going to take a hit. Not because it’s wrong, but because it’s the media’s new toy.
With that in mind, I’m all for toning it down and letting the media focus on the guilty party. The negative reaction to Palin’s blood libel video is very telling. The media likes this topic, in the same way they liked covering the tea party. Mainly because it’s easy.
I apparently did a very poor job of expressing myself. ‘Don’t poke the bear’ means don’t do something there is no need to do if it will certainly or even probably end badly for you. It certainly doesn’t mean you don’t challenge things. Whew! If you only knew. I grew up in a family where NO STATEMENT went unchallenged. After being skewered by older siblings for saying things I couldn’t back up, I learned to wait until I was possessed of ‘overwhelming force’ (military again) or, in other words, an assertion I knew I could defend.
Unfortunately, I learned this same lesson again as a young adult who thought I knew more than I did. A few embarassing incidents taught me not to shoot my mouth off until I really, really knew what I was talking about.
What the article referenced above showed is that people who should have known better did shoot their mouths off. They said or implied things they couldn’t prove, which, it turns out, probably are untrue. This had a predictably bad outcome (more fodder for the right, more victimhood, etc, etc) and there was no reason to do it. Classic poking the bear. If they had waited a while and if it had come out that there were clear connections between the shooting and conservative rhetoric….well then have at it in my book.
I agree there are people who are beyond reach. I said that in my post. And I agree it’s probably not worth talking to them. But this certainly doesn’t apply to all Republicans or even all conservative Republicans. As a matter of fact, it’s clear that a lot of Republicans are also worried by what’s going on. In addition to what we’ve been hearing about the goings-on with the Sussex Rs and the Arizona Rs I saw an article this morning about the same sort of thing going on in Texas. In some cases Republicans are feeling physically threatened by members of their own party. I definitely think there is common ground to be found.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011306389.html
BTW, thanks for the welcome Cassandra. And thanks for the compliment Pandora. Someone actually thought I was funny. Wow!
The fact is, any person who opines on political matters and doesn’t read the full spectrum and breath of various news sources lacks credibility.
I actually read more material/news/commentary from the party opposite my ideology than vice-a-versa.
What I tend to see is a lot of elitist-like, armchair pyschiatry from people like Jonathan Bernstein. Follow his hypothesis to its logical conclusion:
A. Certain people (conservatives or Reps) only read or watch so-called ‘right-wing’ news media.
B. Liberals and/or Democrats read ALL types of news media.
C. Those who fall in the ‘A’ category are therefore, all stupid, and cannot think for themselves.
Jeez!
seems about right to me. If you CHOOSE to be ignorant and uninformed, dont get all upset when someone calls you an ignorant uninformed redneck. Isnt that what personal responsibility is all about? or is that only if you are poor and a conservative doesnt what to help you?
SB: It’s obviously about the condescention-filled hypocrisy that it reveals. Apparently, you are unable to square reality with your own clouded judgment. You have a ‘logic’ flaw in your thinking; a blind-spot for anything that isn’t congruent with your personal ideology.
Nothing more, nothing less. Btw, in premise ‘A,’ I was clearly being sarcastic to point out the absurdity of the logical fallacy presented.
Um… I respectfully disagree, Newshound. I think this charge is quite specific to Sarah Palin – and a few contributors/commenters at Delaware Politics. 😉 I have plenty of Republican friends who read a lot from all types of media. I also have Dem friends who don’t. Everyone does.
My guess (yes, guess) is that Palin doesn’t read much, and her staff probably reads everything, but given a choice between a balanced (read: boring) response Palin and crew will always pick the sensational and the attention.
And, remember, the first person to draw a connection between Palin’s rhetoric and consequences was none other than Gabby Giffords. Does that make Palin guilty. No. But it does give Palin the attention she craves and always, always, capitalizes on. And that’s really all this is about – Palin in the spotlight. It’s all about her.
Whether she read only one side or she read everything is immaterial. What matters is how she focused only on what was said about her… and ran with it.
I have no problem with those who disagree with my ideology. I have close friends who see my more “socialistic” views as naive and under informed. They make that decision based on a long search for the truth, and while i have come to a different conclusion, i respect them for it. Besides, at the end of the day we all like beer and baseball.
My problem is with the willfully ignorant. Those who think a pursuit of truth rather than a gut reaction is unmanly and un American. People who seek out affirmation of their ideals and not only avoid, but attack even the slightest challenge. If it doesn’t match their litmus test for what is Conservative (for example) it must be a lefty liberal plot of some kind to turn them gay. That, is what i refer to when i say Teabagger. That is the way too common caricature of an American conservative that i think is the cancer eating this county’s soul. Willful ignorance is the one thing i have zero tolerance for and i have no problem making that point very clear every single day.
I wasn’t defending Palin. I agree with most that she isn’t an intellectual (her choice) and that she doesn’t challenge herself to gaining deeper knowlege of local, national and international affairs (and everything else in between).
I must of read the post incorrectly. I thought the main focus was on accusing ALL non-liberals of not being dynamic in their reading of news sources.
This post is intended to answer the question from yesterday which was why Palin and her advisors thought her video was a good idea. The answer is if she only reads rightwing news sources, she might have a skewed view of the coverage.
I do, however, think there is an increasing number of people who only get their news from Fox and other RW news sources. The same thing just doesn’t exist on the left since the left does not have a media empire. (Maddow & Olbermann are not an empire)
What the article referenced above showed is that people who should have known better did shoot their mouths off. They said or implied things they couldn’t prove, which, it turns out, probably are untrue. This had a predictably bad outcome (more fodder for the right, more victimhood, etc, etc) and there was no reason to do it. Classic poking the bear. If they had waited a while and if it had come out that there were clear connections between the shooting and conservative rhetoric
UI references this in her post above, but the WaPo article is pretty clear that the one place that the author read — The Corner — ginned up their entire narrative that Palin was being blamed for the Tucson atrocity by liberals. Certainly, there are liberals in out of the way places like here who did for awhile — but the people with reputations and audiences don’t seem to have been blaming her. (and mentioning the crosshairs ad was fair game — especially since Giffords herself made the point of how threatening she thought it was). So even in the absence of real data, they created their own reality (which naturally involves their victimization and other perceived outrages). Which is SOP for these guys. It is a tactic so ingrained that even liberals not consuming conservative media have picked up that narrative to repeat. Why is that? Because it is being repeated by the so-called liberal media. Who still can’t check themselves to see if they are being burned by the conservative noise machine.