Perhaps this topic should be in “Media Bias”, but I wanted to open it for broader discussion.
Cho’s rant, while clearly incoherent and insanely dilusional, gives up some very important insight into the mindset of this disturbed individual. Peppered throughout Cho’s “Manifesto” was a laundry-list of Left-wing talking points. This idiot went right down the list, rapping off a mantra that one could hear at any Left-wing rally. Anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Christian, total victim, anger at the priviledge and status of others, etc. Right down the Left-wing playbook.
Has anyone heard his rantings described as Left-wing, Leftist, Liberal, Far-Left, extreme Left, or in any other way described as Left-wing hate speech? Has anyone heard Cho described as a Left-wing extremist?
Now, imagine Cho’s “manifesto†were a Right-wing screed rather than Left. Does anyone doubt for a nanosecond that the media would have done everything possible in their power to paint Cho and conservatism with the same brush? He would have been labeled a Right-wing mass murderer, and pundits likely would have attached his actions to those who listen to Rush Limbaugh, just like Bill Clinton did with Timothy McVeigh.
My point is not to highlight how much or how little Cho’s sick mind was inspired by the Left. My point is, that the liberal establishment in the media provides cover for negative Leftism, even in a situation like this, but would not do so if the tables were turned and Cho happened to have spewed extreme Right-wing garbage.
Conservatives, we have some tough decisions to make in the coming months and years about just exactly how to deal with the problem we face regarding the insideous nature of our Leftist American neighbors in politics, media, entertainment, and academia. Complaining about it on a web forum does nothing.
He was (at least portrayed as) a right-wing extremist, yet nobody (noteworthy) had the extremely poor taste to try to use him as a political shillelagh with which to club everyone on the Right through association.
Only rightists like IDP, it seems, are willing to stoop so low, sacrificing ethics for ideology.
He was (at least portrayed as) a right-wing extremist, yet nobody (noteworthy) had the extremely poor taste to try to use him as a political shillelagh with which to club everyone on the Right through association.
Only rightists like IDP, it seems, are willing to stoop so low, sacrificing ethics for ideology.
You’re whacked. Bill Clinton himself blamed Tim McVeigh on talk radio shows “like Rush Limbaugh”. The media ran with it, and Tim McVeigh is rarely referred to in the media without the “Right-wing” implication.
Rap, you are at your worst when you attempt to defend the mainstream media aginst charges of Left-wing bias.
From what I can see, Clinton never singled out anyone except convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy for incitement to violence (and there, he had a very good point). He did decry in general incitements to violence against the government on the radio, but from what I can see, he never singled out Rush Limbaugh, nor did he ever directly blame them for what happened in OKC. The only person I could find who mentioned Limbaugh by name in this context was Bryant Gumbel, who came the closest to blaming them:
“The bombing in Oklahoma City has focused renewed attention on the rhetoric that’s been coming from the right and those who cater to angry white men. While no one’s suggesting right-wing radio jocks approve of violence, the extent to which their approach fosters violence is being questioned by many observers, including the president…”
“Right-wing talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan and others take to the air every day with basically the same format: Detail a problem, blame the government or a group, and invite invective from like-minded people.”
Nowhere do I see anyone blaming conservatism in general. Just the excesses of a few talk show hosts.
Which, I might add, is also inappropriate and I do not defend it, but at the same time I think it’s ludicrous to claim moral equivalency here.
Now, imagine Cho’s “manifesto†were a Right-wing screed rather than Left. Does anyone doubt for a nanosecond that the media would have done everything possible in their power to paint Cho and conservatism with the same brush?
Only in your fevered, small imagination. Cho was a nut, a dangerous and deluded individual, and all clear-thinking Americans know that.
I was mistaken to put “like Rush Limbaugh” in quotes. Here is part of a speech in which President Clinton implictaed talk radio in the Oklahoma City bombing, given in Minneapolis a few days after the attck:
“In this country we cherish and guard the right of free speech. We know we love it when we put up with people saying things we absolutely deplore. And we must always be willing to defend their right to say things we deplore to the ultimate degree. But we hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see—I’m sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.”
The implication was clearly that talk radio spews hatred that makes right-wing maniacs like McVeigh think that violence is an acceptable course of action to carry out their agenda. The “Right-wing” tag is on McVeigh permanently as far as the media is concerned, and I DO NOT DIFFER with that characterization.
My point is that the media does not attach the Left-wing label when it is appropriate, and in fact will make efforts to avoid it, as it has in Cho’s case.
They did the exact same thing with Kathleen Soliah, here in the Twin Cities. The local paper actually refered to her as “soccer mom, Sarah-Jane Olson”, when she was in fact the poster child for Left-wing terrorism in the 60’s.
From what I can see, Clinton never singled out anyone except convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy for incitement to violence (and there, he had a very good point). He did decry in general incitements to violence against the government on the radio, but from what I can see, he never singled out Rush Limbaugh, nor did he ever directly blame them for what happened in OKC. The only person I could find who mentioned Limbaugh by name in this context was Bryant Gumbel, who came the closest to blaming them:
“The bombing in Oklahoma City has focused renewed attention on the rhetoric that’s been coming from the right and those who cater to angry white men. While no one’s suggesting right-wing radio jocks approve of violence, the extent to which their approach fosters violence is being questioned by many observers, including the president…”
“Right-wing talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan and others take to the air every day with basically the same format: Detail a problem, blame the government or a group, and invite invective from like-minded people.”
Nowhere do I see anyone blaming conservatism in general. Just the excesses of a few talk show hosts.
Which, I might add, is also inappropriate and I do not defend it, but at the same time I think it’s ludicrous to claim moral equivalency here.
The association is made, nonetheless. Your example proves just the conncetion between Clinton’s statement and the media’s bias that I was attempting to show. Thank you.
I also thought of McVeigh immediately upon reading the initial post. I don’t have a good recollection of the reporting on McVeigh, but whereas Cho is clearly insane, I don’t think McVeigh came across as being crazy. He seemed more calculating and in control of his actions, even up to the end, and he was not suicidal. So, to the extent the press may have treated these individuals differently I can understand it. However, if Cho had the appearance of being as sane as McVeigh (I’m not saying McVeigh wasn’t insane, only that he was not as obviously insane as Cho) I think the press would be downplaying the political aspects of it just as you suggest they are doing now, so to some extent I agree with you, just not as relates to the specifics of these two cases.
I would like to add that in the current political environment, the most overheated rhetoric is coming from people on the left. When Clinton was president in came more from the right. People should understand that their hateful diatribes may trigger insane and unstable people to do awful things. This is a good argument for “toning it down” in terms of the way we talk about one another politically. Just because someone has different politics does not mean they are an evil person.
I was mistaken to put “like Rush Limbaugh” in quotes.
Fair enough.
Here is part of a speech in which President Clinton implictaed talk radio in the Oklahoma City bombing, given in Minneapolis a few days after the attck:
(snip)
The implication was clearly that talk radio spews hatred that makes right-wing maniacs like McVeigh think that violence is an acceptable course of action to carry out their agenda. The “Right-wing” tag is on McVeigh permanently as far as the media is concerned, and I DO NOT DIFFER with that characterization.
I agree that Clinton was attempting to springboard off the OKC incident to springboard an assault on the extremism heard on some right-wing radio.
My point is that the media does not attach the Left-wing label when it is appropriate, and in fact will make efforts to avoid it, as it has in Cho’s case.
Is that because the label doesn’t fit, though? Obviously he thought himself Christian too, and as you know we leftists are all secularists. Just an example.
They did the exact same thing with Kathleen Soliah, here in the Twin Cities. The local paper actually refered to her as “soccer mom, Sarah-Jane Olson”, when she was in fact the poster child for Left-wing terrorism in the 60’s.
‘70s, actually.
And here’s one that’ll bake your noodle:
I met Sarah Jane Olson/Soliah, a couple years before her true identity was known. I was helping then-candidate for Ramsey County District Attorney Chris Coleman (now St. Paul Mayor) with his campaign, and met her at a fundraiser. (You may recall that Chris Coleman considered her a friend.) “Soccer mom” was, in fact, a very accurate way to describe her and her lifestyle in the decade or so before she was caught.
But as to her never being associated with leftism… allow me to call BS:
They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see—I’m sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.â€
Gordon Liddy said on the radio, “Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot - they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.”
Please give us a comparable quote from a liberal commentator with a national platform.
They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see—I’m sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.â€
Gordon Liddy said on the radio, “Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot - they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.”
Please give us a comparable quote from a liberal commentator with a national platform.
Was Liddy responding with outrage to the Clinton Justice Department’s Janet Reno-authorized massacre of innocent American men, women, and children civilians at Waco Texas, or the slaughter at Ruby Ridge?
This attempt by IronDioPriest to associate Cho’s insane acts of homicide with a political group ranks right up there with Newt Gingrich’s association of Susan Smith’s drowning of her two boys to voting Democrat.
This attempt by IronDioPriest to associate Cho’s insane acts of homicide with a political group ranks right up there with Newt Gingrich’s association of Susan Smith’s drowning of her two boys to voting Democrat.
Again, it’s not an attempt to associate Cho’s insane acts of homicide with liberalism; anyone can read his words and see that his sick mind was bent on extreme Left-wing BS. I am saying absolutely NOTHING about mainstream liberalism, or Cho’s association with it. I am labeling him a Left-wing extremist. His own words name him that, without my assistance.
My point Altan, which I’m sure you already know, but are ignoring because your ideology trumps your honesty, is that the media ignores the Left-wing aspects of Cho’s rant, but does not do so whenever the rant of an insane idiot is from an extreme Right-wing source. If we were to believe the media, all ideologically-driven insanity is Right-wing in nature, and insane acts are not committed by Leftists.
They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see—I’m sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.â€
Gordon Liddy said on the radio, “Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot - they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.”
Please give us a comparable quote from a liberal commentator with a national platform.
Was Liddy responding with outrage to the Clinton Justice Department’s Janet Reno-authorized massacre of innocent American men, women, and children civilians at Waco Texas, or the slaughter at Ruby Ridge?
I can’t believe what I’m hearing. Tell me, how would you have dealt with this most precarious of hostage situations?
Janet Reno massacred those kids? You reserve no blame for Koresh, the leader of the group who coerced children to perform sexual acts or for his insane adult followers who killed themselves after shooting the children?
You rail against “perversion” in the form of homosexuality, but you refuse to recognize the evil actions of a crazed man, instead putting the blame on the federal government. Unbelievable.
