Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
For those who still deny that there is a left wing media who make lies into truth by repeating them often and citing one another as the source, I give you today's debate on Wikipedia about blaming Palin for Congresswoman Giffords' shooting.
For those who still think Wikipedia is a real source of information instead of hack-o-lism posing as journalism, I give you today's debate on Wikipedia about blaming Palin for Congresswoman Giffords' shooting.
I awoke this morning wanting to see just news about the Giffords shooting. My TV automatically turns on to CBS (Channel 2 in my area), and the first thing I saw was a report about the shooting, discussing Sarah Palin. "How in the world can anyone in journalism do that?" I wondered. Do they think that we are all dumb enough to believe the old saw, "We are just asking questions, not making accusations?" They were only asking questions about 1 person who has nothing to do with the shooting, not the other 6 billion of us who have nothing to do with the shooting, so I'm certain the questions ARE accusations.
My stomach and my TV turned to the next channel, 4, which is NBC. Again, I saw a graphic of Sarah Palin in connection with the shooting report.
"Enough of the networks," I said to myself. I switched to cable news, the first channel numerically being MSNBC. Again, they were talking about Sarah Palin.
As I write this, I'm listening to "Meet The Press" debating "vitriol in our political discourse" in connection with the shooting. They were not asking whether it's related to the shooting, but how to stop it, as if it has been already decided that political vitriol was the source of the shooter's motivation, even though the FBI director has said that is not the case.
For good measure, host David Gregory is questioning a man who identifies as Tea Party, and is prefacing his questions with, "I'm not blaming the Tea Party," which is code telling us his questions are blaming the Tea Party.
That's three "news" channels and not one of them was talking about the guy who pulled the trigger, Jared Laughner. Each was talking about Sarah Palin, who has as much to do with the shooting as President Obama.
We've seen this act before.
In June 2009 when James W. von Brunn shot and killed people at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, leftists in the media wondered aloud if right-wing anger motivated him. When von Brunn's writing revealed he was a left wing whacko, media stopped reporting about his politics. Irrelevant, I suppose.
Last February when Andrew Joseph Stack crashed a plane into the IRS building in Texas, leftists in media wondered aloud if right-wing anger motivated him. When Stack's writing revealed he was a left wing whacko, media stopped reporting about his politics. Irrelevant, I suppose.
Jared Loughner, Congresswoman Giffords' shooter, has rather enigmatic, nondescript politics (from what we know at this point). While one can say his anti-abortion stance makes him right-wing (which would make Democrat Senator Bob Casey a right-winger), Jared's stated affinity for The Communist Manifesto and his opposition to Arizona's much debated anti-illegal immigration law would likely get him labeled "left-wing." So why then is no one accusing Daily Kos for motivating him instead of Sarah Palin? Why is David Gregory "not accusing" Arianna Huffington on Meet the Press? Why? Because the media are leftists who compulsively slander conservatives every time some leftist nut commits a crime.
You are no doubt familiar with Mark Twain's famous quote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." Thanks to Wikipedia, I got to see this morning the mechanism that the lie uses: liberal media.
I looked on Wikipedia for their story on the Tucson shooting. They have a subheading in the article called, "Target of the Shooting." Most words under the subheading were dedicated to Sarah Palin. The intent couldn't be more obvious: To convince the reader that Palin motivated the shooter to target the Congresswoman.
I've tried to edit Wikipedia articles in the past, and I've found that they have editors (liberals) who insist on a certain message and if yours doesn't fit with theirs, even if you are posting nothing but facts, they will delete your contribution to the article. But I decided to try again anyway.
So I added to the section "Target of the Shooting," underneath the Sarah Palin references, the following: "There is no evidence to date that the shooter was motivated by Sarah Palin, The Tea Party or Conservatism."
Within two minutes it was deleted, with a note sent to me stating that my contribution was "not necessary."
I thereafter found a debate going on among the keepers of the Wiki on the Tucson shooting and the keepers of Sarah Palin's Wikipedia page. You can view the debate here.
Here is the telling part: The Wikiweird who are arguing that Sarah Palin needs to be mentioned in stories about Congresswoman Giffords' shooting rely on this argument: "Other people are doing it."
Oh those journalistic leaders on Wikipedia! What keepers of truth! The argument is quite long, but here it is summed up in all its illogical glory by someone identifying as "AndyTheGrump:"
The question isn't whether the shooter knew of the map [referring to a map of Democrats who Palin targeted for electoral defeat]. Are the mainstream media commenting on the map when they report on the shooting? If they are, then the map needs mentioning in the Gifford article. It isn't up to us to decide what to report based on whether we think the map was actually relevent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes Andy - relevancy be damned! Recite what the liberals are saying anyway!
Just in case anyone wasn't buying the whole "other people are doing it" herdthink, some Wikiweirds made the argument that is as sacred to a liberal as an Imam quoting the Koran: "The New York Times is doing it!" Well, I guess that makes printing lies as truth OK then.
So here we have a peek into the gears for the liberal lie machine - make up lies, edit out facts, cite the New York Times as authority.
Eventually during the day the Sarah Palin references were removed from the "Target of the Attack" section on the Tucson shooting page and relegated to the "Reactions" section, solidifying Wikipedia's view that irrational reactions by unhinged leftists is reportable news.
Good grief.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
A mainstream Irish political radio show today featured a journalist from the Boston Globe with a contribution I didn't hear in it's entirety but I did hear a leading member of the presumptive Government- in- waiting point the finger very clearly at Fox News. I predict this will be the theme of 90% of the coverage of the event here which as always will be received through a blatantly pro-Democrat prism. Once again, I give thanks for the Internet in general and Ricochet in particular ( also RCP) for access to the whole story.
May '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
All too expected. I am tired of complaining about it. The left controls the MSM, Hollywood and the Academy. Without them, Democrats would not even get elected. I don't see how this will ever get better.
Jul '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
Nicely documented. These people clearly have way too much time on their hands. And, of course, tomorrow the schools will send students to Wikipedia to research the shootings, and the cycle continues.
May '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
I find Wikipedia pretty reliable. I haven't had too many problems with it in the past. Its co-founder, Jimmy Wales, is a radical free-market type which is reassuring.
Jun '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
There's nothing new about "killing" the messenger, and in this case the messenger is Fox News. When it comes to Fox News, the Far Left is every bit as homicidal as Jared Loughner. If they could "kill" Fox News by emptying a clip into it, they'd do it.
May '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
To paraphrase Tom Wolfe (from Uncommon Knowledge) regarding Wikipedia: "some of it may be true!"
Aug '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
My primary concern in comment #1 above is that the clown who blamed Fox (without offering a shred of evidence, not even a quote) will be a Government Minister in 4 months.Maybe they'll ban Fox and take Palin's books off the shelves.They wouldn't lose many votes I'm afraid. PS Early editions of tomorrow's UK newspapers have the lefty Guardian and Independent taking up the theme.At least the Guardian has a photo of the poor little girl.Heartbreaking.
Nov '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
A disenfranchised lunatic with a 9mm pistol and no discernible political affiliation has handed the Democrats a priceless gift — an excuse for discouraging (or shutting down) public debate in America. For now on, anyone who criticizes the socialist agenda in any way (no matter how temperate) will be accused of "heating up the rhetoric." Anyone who persists in being "heated" will be promptly demonized by the MSM. Less than a week after the swearing-in, the new Republican House is already neutralized.
This will not soon blow over. It is a supreme opportunity for the Democrats. They will not waste it and they will milk it for all it is worth, for as long as they can. It is no exaggeration to say that, because of Jared Loughner, Obama will be re-elected, Obamacare will never be repealed or reformed, and we will continue helplessly down the road to serfdom.
What on Earth can we do?
Dec '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
Lady Kurobara
This will not soon blow over. It is a supreme opportunity for the Democrats. They will not waste it and they will milk it for all it is worth, for as long as they can. It is no exaggeration to say that, because of Jared Loughner, Obama will be re-elected, Obamacare will never be repealed or reformed, and we will continue helplessly down the road to serfdom.
What on Earth can we do? · Jan 9 at 6:21pm
Buck up, meatbag!
What we do is ignore the bastards and forge ahead.
When they say we are inspiring hatred and violence, mock them relentlessly.
When they say we must stop talking, ignore them.
What are they going to do, take away our birthdays?
That is how the left reacts to real laws and regulations, they ignore them, and skate.
That is how we must react to the left's made up rules about "polite" political discourse.
Mock them and continue apace.
It has worked for the left for going on a hundred years now. I see no reason that it cannot work for us as well.
Edited on Jan 9, 2011 at 7:02pmNov '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
CoolHand
Lady Kurobara
This will not soon blow over. It is a supreme opportunity for the Democrats. They will not waste it and they will milk it for all it is worth, for as long as they can. It is no exaggeration to say that, because of Jared Loughner, Obama will be re-elected, Obamacare will never be repealed or reformed, and we will continue helplessly down the road to serfdom.
What on Earth can we do?
Buck up, meatbag!
What we do is ignore the bastards and forge ahead.
When they say we are inspiring hatred and violence, mock them relentlessly.
When they say we must stop talking, ignore them.
That is how the left reacts to real laws and regulations, they ignore them, and skate.
That is how we must react to the left's made up rules about "polite" political discourse.
Mock them and continue apace.
It has worked for the left for going on a hundred years now. I see no reason that it cannot work for us as well.
I love your indomitable spirit, CoolHand. I will follow your advice and stay true to myself, even at the risk of being banned from Ricochet.
Jul '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
Lady Kurobara
This will not soon blow over. It is a supreme opportunity for the Democrats. They will not waste it and they will milk it for all it is worth, for as long as they can. It is no exaggeration to say that, because of Jared Loughner, Obama will be re-elected, Obamacare will never be repealed or reformed, and we will continue helplessly down the road to serfdom.
What on Earth can we do? · Jan 9 at 6:21pm
First off, we need to stop obsessing on the fulminations and wringing of hands over the opposition press, stack their garbage high and wide and raw for the whole world to see, and cheerfully dismiss them as beyond the pale, then move on. They just proved their bigotries yet again, call them on it. No outlet that frolicked with the Palin meme is a news organization, nor led by decent people. There is a reason why FoxNews not only leads but brutally dominates the field.
And understand that their Palin meme is layered. It denounces the violence while identifying for the violence-prone an acceptable line of justification for any mayhem they may be contemplating, thereby inciting more violence.
Nov '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
Sisyphus:
Lady Kurobara
This will not soon blow over. It is a supreme opportunity for the Democrats. They will not waste it and they will milk it for all it is worth, for as long as they can. It is no exaggeration to say that, because of Jared Loughner, Obama will be re-elected, Obamacare will never be repealed or reformed, and we will continue helplessly down the road to serfdom.
What on Earth can we do?
[U]nderstand that their Palin meme is layered. It denounces the violence while identifying for the violence-prone an acceptable line of justification for any mayhem they may be contemplating, thereby inciting more violence.
That is an exceptionally good point.
And, if someone ever puts a bullet into Sarah Palin, the MSM will respond with nothing but a shrug and a quiet smile of satisfaction. They are smug, filthy, cynical hypocrites.
Jul '10
Re: Wikipedia Debates Blaming Sarah Palin For Tucson Shooting
Despite the semi-official news agencies the country continues to trend right. What on earth explains this? It can't be that people are smarter than the media elites think, so there must be another reason. Engineers are generally conservative people and they are in charge of the water supply. Can it be that they are slipping something in?