Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reality Confronts Our Childish Media in the Form of Greg Gianforte’s Election
Greg Gianforte’s election to Congress has given the American media the opportunity to condemn violence and lecture the rest of the country about their hypocrisy and the evils of violence in politics. What will get lost in all of the lecturing, righteous indignation, and charges of hypocrisy is any meaningful acceptance or examination of the truth. The truth is that in one district in Montana and likely large sections of the country, you can now get elected to Congress after assaulting a reporter. In fact, since Gianforte raised more than $100,000 after the assault came to light, “body-slamming” a reporter might actually help your chances of getting elected. That fact says more about the media than it does about Greg Gianforte or this election.
First, the election shows that you can’t justify or ignore some political violence. You either have to condemn all political violence or understand you will have to live with it. The media has spent months cackling over the video of some masked thug punching Richard Spencer. They have spent the entire last year ignoring and excusing really shocking instances of leftist mob violence in Berkley, NYU, Middlebury College, and other places. Of course, the media will say this is different. This is a Congressional candidate and a reporter. And to some degree they are right. But it doesn’t matter. That is not how people see it and how things actually work. People don’t see the video of Richard Spencer being sucker punched and think “he deserved it, he is a Nazi.” They see it as the media thinks it is okay to punch someone whose political views you don’t like. Well, the media doesn’t like Spencer but most of America doesn’t like the media. It works both ways no matter how many clever or even valid arguments you make saying one is different than the other. The media can’t celebrate or justify political violence they like and then suddenly expect the country to be shocked by such violence when it affects a reporter.
Second, it shows just how disliked the media is in this country and the price that it is going to start paying for that. The media has spent years or maybe even decades openly loathing large segments of the American public. Eventually, that feeling was going to become mutual. And as the media is finding out, it is no fun being unpopular. In an ideal world, people should stand up and defend those they don’t like where an injustice occurs. In the real world, most people have better things to do and some people like to see injustices happen to people they don’t like. The media makes no secret of its disdain for most Americans. It cannot do that and then expect those same Americans to care when some politician beats up a reporter. Again, that is not fair or the way things should be, but it is the way things are. And the media needs to come to terms with that and start improving its relations with the rest of the country.
The other thing that this incident illustrates is the effects of the general decline in civility and decorum among the media and the political class in general. If this incident had occurred 50 years ago, it would have likely ended with an apology on both sides with Gianforte apologizing for losing his temper and the reporter apologizing for letting the confrontation got out of hand. In this case, of course, the reporter didn’t apologize or do anything but using the event as an excuse to show his righteous anger. The thought that perhaps he didn’t act appropriately and had something to answer for even if it didn’t justify Gianforte’s response never occurred to him. And this is unsurprising and not a good thing for the media or society.
Last year a video of a student at Yale confronting a university official over some Halloween party controversy went viral. Most of the commentary about the video concerned the woman’s absurd and oppressive opinions. What struck me about the video, however, was not her opinions. I have long known people who go to places like Yale generally believe absurd and stupid things and the woman’s views were exactly what I would expect from a student at such a place. What I found striking was the way she expressed those opinions. The woman seemed to have no understanding of how to act around other people or confront someone. She believed that was perfectly okay to scream in the face and physically confront anyone she didn’t like or whose opinions she didn’t agree. Worse, the students around her cheered her. Not a single one of them stepped in and told her to calm down or act differently. The man at whom she was screaming didn’t seem to think it was inappropriate either. Apparently, at Yale and a lot of other places, this is how you act when you disagree or don’t like someone.
The problem is that people who graduate from places like Yale and who largely make up our media think that because in the abstract screaming in someone’s face or acting in completely inappropriate or disrespectful ways doesn’t justify the other person resorting to violence, that acting that way is never going to result in violent consequences. Sadly, life doesn’t work that way. If you go around screaming at people and confronting them in offensive ways, the fact that they do not have the moral right to assault you will not stop some people from doing it anyway. So, if you don’t want to be assaulted, you ought not to behave in ways likely to cause people to lose their temper and do so. If the media wants a civil and restrained political environment, they need to act in restrained and civil ways themselves.
Now, it may be that the reporter was sitting quietly reading his Communist Manifesto or Michael Foucault, and Gianforte went berserk and attacked him. I, however, seriously doubt that was the case. Whatever happened, Gianforte’s actions were the end of a confrontation that was likely initiated and escalated by the reporter. That again does not justify Gianforte or say it is okay to choke and punch someone who confronts you. It is to state the reality that no matter how wrong doing something like that is, if someone acts obnoxious enough long enough, eventually a target of that obnoxiousness is going to lose their temper and do something wrong.
The easy thing to do in response to this, and of course what 99 percent of the media is doing, is to stand in righteous anger about the need for everyone to condemn violence. Doing that, however, accomplishes nothing except making the speaker feel good and making the media’s constant excuses for leftist violence look all the more hypocritical. What needs to happen, and likely won’t because the media is completely incapable of self-reflection, is an honest examination of how it is that the national media could get so alienated from the rest of the country and the rest of the country so cynical that a Congressional candidate can assault a reporter and have it end up not hurting his election chances but likely helping them. Fat chance. If the media were capable of doing that, we likely wouldn’t be in this situation. That, however, doesn’t change the need for such a self-examination to occur.
One small note: it may be that this entire thing is a hoax and Gianforte is innocent. I don’t know. But for my purposes that doesn’t matter because whatever the truth people at the time of the election thought it was true and voted for him anyway. So, the fact that Gianforte might be proven to be innocent doesn’t change the fact that he could have been guilty and still won the election.
Published in General
I have seen several stories about discussions with voters whose desire to vote for Gianforte was increased by the conflict with the reporter. So your observation about the press is spot on. Many people would like to see the press get beaten, feeling that the press deserves it.
I think this says a lot about the American public
Yes, Jamie, I think it says that at least some portion of the American public is not willing to put up with what the European type sophisticates consider acceptable behavior in these matters. I recently was reading a British police detective procedural novel of a murder investigation and over and over I was amazed at kid gloves treatment in the approach to police work solving crimes there compared to my image of that same function here. Gives me some understanding of how Europeans are losing they’re cultural identity.
2nd terrific post today. Write a third a third and go for the Ricochet Hat Trick!
The media relationship with that area of the country between the coasts is a real story here and this entire year.
My problem with this is a little different.
I do not think the reporter should have been assaulted. Civilized people do not act this way. The problem is I have absolutely no way of telling what happened. Who am I to believe? A reporter? Why? The incident sounds odd. It does not make sense. Now if a reporter reported this incident about a Democrat I would be more likely to believe it, not because I dislike Democrats, I don’t, but because the media has shown to be so much in the bag for the Democrats that they would likely cover it up than not, so since they did not it has a higher chance of truth. But the media has taken a side, and they have thrown away all objectivity to the Republicans, so it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the reporter punched the politician and the press reported his self defense as an assault. Thus the problem. How do you believe an industry that has proven itself to be liars?
Nice post John. I think your analysis of Gianforte supporters rings true.
I wonder actually about a variation where the reporter perhaps doesn’t quite reach the stage of physical assault but is right on the edge. If the reporter has been disinvited from the area yet enters anyway and then shoves a mic into one’s face why voicing hostile questions, he’s on the edge and this action is understandable to me.
I think you’re painting with too broad a brush. It’s clear that lots of support was expressed for Gianforte after the assault, but it’s not clear to me how widespread that support is. One percent of the population can make a hell of a lot of noise, but they don’t generally swing elections.
To be honest, I’m not sure how I would have voted were I in that district. FWIW, I would not have thought it was good, or even acceptable, that Gianforte assaulted a journalist, but I would have been suspicious about changing my vote based on a last-minute emergent story. The voters there were in a tough spot. The media is known to push false and exaggerated accounts against conservative politicians. The audio would not have been enough for me to assume the accounts were accurate, even though it appears that they were. I think it’s far more likely that people decided to vote for Gianforte before election day and the event was too late and/or insufficiently proven to get them to change that vote than it is that they voted for him because of the assault.
Yes it does. It tells us that the American public has internalized the lessons that the media has been teaching us.
Ferguson riots, Berkeley riots, beating Trump supporters in California, destruction of property and Antifa violence are celebrated. Black Lives Matter can do virtually anything and not be called out. Terrorist explode things and it is really our fault.
The media has told us that if you don’t like or a agree with a political idea violence is OK. So the public does not react poorly to violence.
If you want violence to be taboo in our politics (which I do) the only way to get there now may be to take all violence out of our politics. Not just violence by people you dislike or violence against a reporter or violence by a candidate but all violence.
I’ve asked this question several times and never received an answer: what is the appropriate response in this situation? He told the reporter to talk to his press guy, and the reporter persisted in causing a disruption. Should he have called security and had him removed? I guess that wouldn’t look quite as bad, but it still would look bad.
The First Amendment is for everyone or it’s for no one. If Trump supporters are not safe, reporters and leftists should not be safe.
I’m a criminal defense lawyer and I’ve defended more assault cases than I can remember. In the real world the poor baby would know that if he doesn’t want to get punched, he should get out of my face. Jurors know that. Journalists should learn it.
What is the First Amendment issue you are referencing here?
The Left is getting to reap what is has sown.
At the moment, there is no reason not to believe the reporter in this case.
We have a basic fact: Politician attacks reporter. There have been 3 accounts of this fact: 1 by the politician, 1 by a witness and an audio recording. The audio recording contradicts the politician’s account but does not contradict the witness’ account. The witness has insubstantially revised her account, adjusting a detail in her description of the altercation.
From the audio recording we hear a reporter calmly ask a question. Then we hear the politician calmly tell the reporter to talk to someone else. The reporter starts to say something in the same calm tone of voice but within a second there is a ruckus. This suggests, if unedited, that the politician took a calm negotiation of terms as provocation worthy of a smack down. We cannot see where the reporter’s recorder was from an audio recording, but the tones of voice being used do not suggest that the reporter was being belligerent or that the politician was issuing a final warning regarding improper behavior.
What’s the benefit of defending Gianforte in this scenario? Because some journalists behave unethically in their jobs, all reporters should expect a beating without warning? Is it merely “Our side”-ism? Who wants to be on the side of someone who behaves this way and then lies about it?
Or, worse, is proud of it?
It strike anybody else as funny that Perez & Co are decrying this awful act of aggression in front of a podium emblazoned with the slogan: “Fight Back!” ?
Thank goodness there was a real man running as a Republican we can all live vicariously through while he renders out true and swift justice against those media scapegoat dogs.
I just re-read the first amendment (I’m no legal scholar). It says “Congress shall make no law…freedom of speech, or freedom of the press.” So I see your point; it’s more a local law enforcement issue than a first amendment issue. I guess I should say if the police don’t arrest the antifa thugs in Berkeley, then they shouldn’t arrest anyone who beats up a journalist in Montana. Fair is fair, but let the local authorities decide based on local and state laws.
First, it is MT, there is no security. You are your own security in MT.
Second, even Mr. Gianforte has admitted his actions were wrong. He should not have laid hands on the reporter
Third, I can imagine something like this: Gianforte tried to swat/grab the phone/recorder out of the reporters hand to get it out of his face, the reporter grabbed Gianforte’s wrist and turned away to prevent his phone from being taken, and this caused Gianforte to follow and kind of lose balance, which is when Gianforte snapped and took them both down on purpose with Gianforte on top. Feeling fully frustrated Gianforte probably got up by pushing on the reporters face as a put down (kinda like what football players do after a pile up).
Fourth, I voted for him anyway.
This is the sort of thing I suspected may have occurred, but it’s pretty clear now that it was nothing like that. From the eyewitness account:
I’m often amazed at the restraint demonstrated by celebrities, politicians, crime victims, etc. when it comes to rudely aggressive reporters. If he had shoved the guy out of his office, I wouldn’t bat an eye. Gianforte committed assault for no better reason than he was frustrated. This is not admirable behavior.
That reporter cited there walked back her description of the altercation. No neck grabbing.
Outside that detail, the witness report could be consistent with Z’s theory.
My reaction to the incident was, “Idiot, you just elected a Democrat” Well thank goodness that worked out. But he’s still an idiot even if most of us secretly cheered before we said, “idiot!”
But are you suggesting that this reporter was impeded in anyway from expressing himself as a member of the press? There is no right under any circumstance, press or not, to answers to questions. Upon refusal, the reporter can then write the story.
Fwiw, there was a situation several years ago where a man was shouting down Howard Dean as he gave a speech. Al Franken boasted that he body-slammed the heckler because he knew how to do so as a former wrestler, and because he believed in free speech. From the media there was the sound of crickets. I don’t defend what Gianforte or Franken did, but the media’s outrage about one and indifference to the other is, as usual, galling.
See the seventh paragraph:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/magazine/al-franken-seriously-so.html?_r=0
https://www.diabloii.net/forums/threads/al-franken-body-slammed-a-heckler.128062/
Substantively different, going by the first-hand account in the NY Times.
The point of the OP is that even if the candidate had, unprovoked, run across the room and coathangered the entirely faultless reporter, it would have played well with a section of the public and that this is so is the press’s fault.
It is. And the profession and system of journalism is, at this point, irredeemable. It needs to be made clear by all people of good will that it is not OK to be a journalist. That even a Claire or Mollie, as pure of heart as they might be, have chosen poorly.
This is not a call for vigilantism or physical intimidation. It is a call for a polite but firm shunning, and a willingness to call a spade a spade, and a journalist a tool for undermining the republic.
I am not convinced that shoving the guy is necessarily a political act. I think its more garden variety interpersonal conflict. The reporter likely aggressively invaded his space, and was asked to stop, he didn’t he got shoved.
The overall lack of sympathy for the reporter may be political.
What then is your suggestion for news gathering and dissemination? How will government be held accountable?
Hah. Good one, Bob Thompson.