Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Yesterday, Floyd Lee Corkins II pleaded guilty to three criminal counts involving his August 2012 shooting attack on the Washington D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council. He told the FBI that he picked his target from a "hate map" (!) on the web site of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You'll recall, I'm sure, that when a disturbed individual went on a murderous shooting rampage in Arizona injuring Rep. Gabbie Giffords and killing or injuring more than 20 people, basically all mainstream media outlets, from the Associated Press to the New York Times, tied the shooting to Sarah Palin. See, she had "targeted" that congressional district in a map identifying races that her PAC could win. We had national conversations on how conservative rhetoric was the cause and needed to be changed.
Now, there was not even the teensy-tiniest shred of evidence that Jared Loughner's world even included Sarah Palin, much less her map. Not even one shred of evidence. Yesterday, we learned that a politically motivated individual had used a progressive "hate map" to identify four conservative groups as targets for his murderous intent. Yes, he said he intended to kill as many people as possible. He was tackled by his first victim, as it turned out, so his master plan failed.
Back in 2011, we were treated to headlines such as The Atlantic's "Did Sarah Palin's Target Map Play Role in Giffords Shooting?"
In the wake of his shocking and senseless attack, a number of commentators are asking, as The Atlantic's James Fallows put it, "whether there is a connection between" such "extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery" as that published by Palin and "actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be." In other words, did Palin's map cross the line famously described by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic?"
The Washington Post wrote a story headlined "Palin caught in crosshairs map controversy after Tucson shootings." The story acknowledges that it's written as the "result of a national tragedy in which there is no known connection between anything Palin said or did and the alleged actions of Jared Loughner, who is accused of fatally shooting six and severely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 13 others."
Andrew Sullivan wrote, "No one is saying Sarah Palin should be viewed as an accomplice to murder. Many are merely saying that her recklessly violent and inflammatory rhetoric has poisoned the discourse and has long run the risk of empowering the deranged. We are saying it's about time someone took responsibility for this kind of rhetorical extremism, because it can and has led to violence and murder."
I actually went over to Sullivan's site (navigating through his uterine spelunking conspiracy theories) to discover he had nothing to say about the Family Research Center shooter using an SPLC "hate map" to target his victims.
During the Blame-Palin-for-Everything-that-Ails-the-World Era, the New York Times' Matt Bai wrote, "it's hard not to think [Loughner] was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon." Bai explains, "The problem would seem to rest with the political leaders who pander to the margins of the margins, employing whatever words seem likely to win them contributions or TV time, with little regard for the consequences." He says Palin and other used "imagery of armed revolution. Popular spokespeople like Ms. Palin routinely drop words like 'tyranny' and 'socialism' when describing the president and his allies, as if blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms."
No such laments at the New York Times this week. I guess the SPLC dropping words like "hate group" and "hate incident" to describe their political opponents isn't quite as bad as identifying someone as "socialist."
Instead of jeremiads about the overheated discourse used against people who support traditional marriage, here's how the Washington Post treated its story on the shooter (which, you will not be surprised to find out, had an emphasis not on hateful rhetoric but ... gun control):
A detail sure to reignite the culture wars that erupted around the shooting is the fact that Corkins told FBI agents that he identified the Family Research Council as anti-gay on the Web site of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The day after the shooting, Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, suggested that the law center’s labeling of the organization as a hate group had given Corkins a “license to perpetrate this act of violence.” On Wednesday, Perkins said the revelation had validated his earlier comments.
Emphasis mine. Excuse me? What is that supposed to mean? I mean, you have an actual shooting in the culture war -- an actual shooting -- and you dismiss this aspect of the story as a "detail" that is "sure to reignite the culture wars"? The gall. The chutzpah. The .... hypocrisy of our media. The story doesn't mention, by the way, that the shooter had a list with other groups whose names he got from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
ABC, NBC, and the Associated Press either didn't mention the SPLC angle or buried it way down low.
Now, if you were a more balanced reporter, you might try calling up the SPLC and asking them to review their hate map and their stories blaming their political opponents' rhetoric for violence. As Mary Katherine Ham writes:
Funny thing, though: The SPLC itself was verrrrry quick to try to tie Jared Loughner to the “far right”, and kept at it long enough that they were posting speculative pieces about “political rhetoric” and its role in the Tucson shooting as late as 13 days after it occurred. Not only are they comfortable with a free-speech slippery slope when it’s right-wingers who are at risk, they’re willing and eager to add some grease.
Maybe a reporter could call up SPLC and ask them about those things. Or even just ask them about this line in their article "Who is Jared Lee Loughner?":
Ideology may not explain why he allegedly killed, but it could help explain how he selected his target.
Or maybe a reporter could ask the Southern Poverty Law Center why they have a "Hate Incident" list that doesn’t include FRC shooting.
But something tells me that the media won't press them on this and they won't have to explain themselves to anyone. So interesting how that works.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
By the way, you simply must read the comments to my post on this over at the media analysis site GetReligion. They are ... fascinating ...
Basically the argument goes that Sarah Palin should be blamed for murders she had nothing to do with because, well, she's Sarah Palin and she used violent imagery when talking about, uh, campaign .... battles ... whereas SPLC's "hate map" isn't violent or mean in any way and is really about love and puppy dogs and even though the shooter named it as the means by which he identified his targets we shouldn't ask them any tough questions about whether their rhetoric contributes to a violent climate.
I'm sure it will make sense if I noodle on it enough.
Edited on February 7, 2013 at 5:47pmMay '10
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
We need to understand that we are in a civil war of world views in this country. It has been cold, or at least cool up until recently, when it has begun to heat up with hot spots flaring up like Kenneth Gladney, union thugs in Wisconsin & Michigan, Floyd Corkins, Obama's call to "get in their face," etc. etc.
The Leftist commentariat has few conscientious scruples when it comes to criticizing their shock troops, or reining them in for that matter.
Personally I'm done giving them the benefit of the doubt. I believe many of them are quietly pleased with physical violence matching their rhetorical violence.
Between their propagandists at their keyboards, and their brownshirts [noun purposely chosen] in the streets, they will push, push, push, and push until one day something snaps and the pushback begins. This is a big reason why the Left is so adamantly determined to disarm everyone.
It won't be pretty. I'm not advocating it. I am predicting it.
Sep '12
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Thanks for the heads-up on the comments, Mollie. It's dreadful and pathetic that the MSM and their minions are so irresponsible, but it's quite hilarious to see people twist themselves into pretzels trying to make their case in this instance, when the evidence is so glaringly obvious. Nice job of sarcastic put-downs on your part!
Jul '11
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Mollie - should we create our own Hate Map and put all the Mosques in the country as "Anti-Gay"? How about all left wing media outlets as misogynists? (tongue in cheek)
Jul '11
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
All abortion supporters as anti-human rights?
Nov '11
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Good work, Mollie.
But don't you tire of pointing out the obvious? I don't have the patience or the energy to do it anymore. Feels like wasting my breath. Short bits of weary sarcasm are about all I can't manage these days.
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
It's something I find interesting about the SPLC. I mean, if they were consistent, I think they'd do just that (or at least put Muslim advocacy groups in a hate category of *some* kind) but they don't.
More than anything, I hope that people would just engage those with whom they disagree on the merits of the case, not by shutting down communication by calling it "hateful" or some such. To be honest, I think this happens amongst partisans of many stripes.
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Astonishing: Good work, Mollie.
But don't you tire of pointing out the obvious? I don't have the patience or the energy to do it anymore. Feels like wasting my breath. Short bits of weary sarcasm are about all I can't manage these days. · 8 minutes ago
Well, yes. It's something I struggle with over at GetReligion a lot these days. I fear the media are getting worse, more brazen in their political advocacy. They don't even care any more.
What's more, if you read the comments to my piece, they come up with the most amazing mental gymnastics to defend the shoddy work. It's wearying. Good word for it.
Reporters and others tell me, time to time, that what I do there is important. Still, I wonder ...
Jan '11
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
I'm usually the first to roll my eyes at double-standard defenses, but gall involved in this one is simply astounding.
Good work, Mollie.
Apr '12
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
This kind of blatant inconsistency tends to bother me a lot. It's very common among the left in general and the media in particular. I think there are two kinds of people who engage in it. The first kind (probably the majority) are those with very limited basic reasoning skills, i.e., the fundamentally irrational people. The second kind realize they are being inconsistent but strategically decide to propagate the inconsistency, i.e., the fundamentally dishonest people. I have no respect and no concern for either of these two kinds of people. They're to be avoided and forgotten as much as possible. It's too bad they're so loud, but they won't be loud forever.
Apr '11
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Well, yes. It's something I struggle with over at GetReligion a lot these days. I fear the media are getting worse, more brazen in their political advocacy. They don't even care any more.
What's more, if you read the comments to my piece, they come up with the most amazing mental gymnastics to defend the shoddy work. It's wearying. Good word for it.
Reporters and others tell me, time to time, that what I do there is important. Still, I wonder ... · 30 minutes ago
Political advocacy in the media has gotten a lot more brazen overall, not just in the news but in many forms. In entertainment I find it irksome, but in the news I'm finding it downright dangerous.
The comments where enlightening, at least in a psychological sense when seeing the minds of others. It's clear the facts of the two issues and the point of your article mattered little: Palin bad; fire bad; SPLC good.
Sep '10
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Fascinating, Mollie. The word hate has lost its meaning. Or, perhaps more accurately, it has come to mean "You disagree with me." It puts violence and true hate in the same category as valid political or moral disagreement. Even that's not quite right since some odious groups don't make the SPLC's hate list. Looking over the list for my home state, there's quite a mixed bag, from skinheads to a Catholic book club. Oh, no! A BOOK CLUB. Run for your lives! They probably know Latin.
Is it even possible to have a civil conversation in which people differ at all (outside of Ricochet)? Apparently not over at the SPLC. Maybe not on the Left altogether.
Sep '10
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Those comments make me despair for the future of the human race. They are smug, yet patently illogical. Words fail me. Mollie, how do you have the strength to go on?
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Terrific post, but infuriating topic.
I feel so frustrated.
ps: Daily Kos used the same targeting imagry on Gabby Giffords as did Palin, but no one in the MSM blamed him.
Nov '11
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
. . What's more, if you read the comments to my piece, they come up with the most amazing mental gymnastics to defend the shoddy work. . . .
Speaking of obvious, the very first commenter on your Get Religion article excuses the SPLC with a suggestion that the SPLC hate map isn't an incitement: "Merely naming the FRC as a 'hate group' isn’t an incitement to violence by any standard."
But the SPLC's hate map is a double incitement because it inflames both sides. When SPLC accuses others of being hateful, it inflames both the those accused of hate and the SPLC's own adherents.
The hate map attempts to humiliate and to ostracize its targets. Anger, and sometimes even violence, are predictable human responses to humiliation and isolation.
Because hate is unreasoning and dangerous, the accusation that political opponents' views are rooted in hate implies that reasoning with them would be fruitless, and thereby excuses SPLC adherents from attempting to resolve disagreement through reasonable discussion, which leaves violence as an obvious alternative for dealing with such dangerous and unreasoning persons.
Apr '12
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
I think I'll avoid it, lest I start considering what it'd take to gnaw through my own wrists.... *dark humor*
****
Yes, what you're doing is important. I shared this on my personal facebook and was told that I'd better write it up.
Everybody here knows that there's media bias, or should. I hadn't realized that, even with knowing that, I was falling prey to it-- my view of the FRC shooter was that he was a cartoonish failure. Sure, he shot someone, but it was almost amazing he hadn't managed to shoot himself. Good grief, he was packing Chick-fil-A bags-- what, as camouflage? Show them at the door and you'll get in fine? etc.
*****
Astonishing- poisoning the well, I believe it's called.
Jul '10
Re: Politics = Hate, but 'Hate Maps' = Love Maps
The SPLC has worked so hard to get noticed, much less be seen as still relevant by someone, somewhere, sometime, and when they finally succeed in some small way, this is it.
With enemies like that, who needs friends?