Showing posts with label Blood Libel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blood Libel. Show all posts

Monday, November 28, 2011

John Daly: The Media Can’t Bring Themselves to Detach Palin from Giffords

John Daly posted an article on BernardGoldberg.com last night, about the ridiculous trick that the media keeps trying to fool their audience with by linking Governor Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Daly calls out those in the press who once again, tried to assign blame to Governor Palin, as if she had anything to do with the violent actions of the crackpot who committed the crime. He wrote:
Now, it’s lame enough when the media speculates on influences to murderers based on who authored the books that sat on their shelves at home, or who sang the songs they enjoyed listening to. But this was far more of a stretch. At the time the Palin connection was being suggested, the media knew practically nothing about the shooter. They had absolutely no idea of his political leanings. They had no idea if he even had access to the internet, let alone had ever visited the website of Palin’s political action committee.

And despite the concept of targeting districts being used for decades by numerous political strategists (often accompanied with visual representations off cross-hairs, targets, and bulls-eyes), its metaphorical context was selectively disregarded by many in the mainstream media for the purpose of creating a link to Palin. In their well-documented disdain for the former Alaska governor, many despicably went ahead and suggested that she could have been some sort of spiritual accomplice to the shooter.

In the end of course, Loughner was found to be a complete nut-case who former friends actually described as a “liberal” who regularly welled up in anger at the sight of George W. Bush. His longstanding, dangerous fixation on Congresswoman Giffords predated the Tea Party and Sarah Palin’s introduction onto the national scene. Palin was of no influence on him, nor was any coherent political ideology.

One would have thought that the revelation would have put to rest the reckless and politically-motivated media assault on Palin, but as we’ve found out over the last two weeks, it didn’t.

On November 15th, ABC ran a widely praised special on Giffords’ inspirational recovery. The special featured the congresswoman’s grueling rehabilitation and the strength of her marriage. Gabrielle Giffords’ story was a testament to the human spirit, but host, Diane Sawyer chose to cap off the program with these final comments: “After she [Giffords] voted for healthcare, she faced people in her district calling her a traitor, booing her in townhalls. Someone even fired a gun into her office door. And you may remember Sarah Palin targeted her district with an ad that had a gunsight on it.”

Unbelievable. What relevance did any of that have to what happened to Giffords? Did ABC decide that Giffords’ amazing story of triumph after tragedy couldn’t stand on its own? Did they feel the need to concoct a few more villains? A few more hurdles? The answer is no. They just saw another opportunity to take a few political cheap shots (while they had the attention of a large audience) at the supporters of an ideology they abhor.

But it didn’t end there. On November 23rd, Piers Morgan brought up Palin again in a CNN interview with Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, astronaut Mark Kelly.

“Sarah Palin doesn’t come out of this very well, I don’t think, because there was a woman who at the time had been putting these cross hair things on her website and stuff, including Gabby”, said Morgan. “And in her haste to take responsibility didn’t even bother to pick the phone up, to write, do anything.”

When Kelly confirmed that he and his wife were indeed not contacted by Palin, Morgan responded, “I find that extraordinary.”

Extraordinary? Really? Is it customary for someone falsely accused of a crime to reach out to the victim? If anyone owed the Giffords an apology, wouldn’t it be those in the media who used the horrific tragedy to fuel a witch-hunt against those they see as their political opponents?

Sarah Palin didn’t contact the Giffords for the same reason that I didn’t, Piers Morgan didn’t, and hundreds of millions of other Americans didn’t: We didn’t know her or her family. We kept them in our thoughts and prayers instead. Any notion that it would have been responsible for Palin to contact them is absurd. If she had, fine. But she had no moral responsibility to do so. She had no more to do with the Arizona shootings than the very people who unjustly yanked her into the story in the first place.
You can read the entire piece here.

Monday, January 17, 2011

The Media Owe Sarah Palin an Apology

Last night, after Governor Palin was interviewed by Sean Hannity, the left desperately sought something from the exchange to feign outrage over. Some seemed to latch on to a sentiment expressed by Anderson Cooper during his show, when he said:
"She seems unwilling to apologize or back off of anything."

Then later:
"I don't think I've ever heard her back off anything she's done."

Telling isn't it? Anderson Cooper wanting Governor Palin to "back off." That aside, it is absolutely outrageous to suggest that she owes anybody an apology after last week. Everybody knows that the media starting throwing the blame for the horrible massacre in Tucson upon her shoulders immediately after the incident took place, and before ANY facts where known. A massacre that took the lives of six people, including a nine year-old girl.

The media then spent the next few days after the shooting, egging her on from their anchor chairs, asking "where is she" and "when is she going to apologize!" After an appropriate amount of time had passed, she respectfully and rightly defended herself and others who the media had smeared with a manufactured blood libel. A truth the press has tried to absolve itself of by discrediting the term "blood libel" on the basis that is has a historical root belonging to a different religion than that of the governor's. Their efforts to do so have been ridiculous and nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

The left is attempting to get Governor Palin to apologize, for no other reason than to get some of the mud they have thrown at her to stick. By apologizing for anything in relation to what happened in Tucson, Governor Palin would solidify the linkage the media created, between her and the killings. The press would love nothing more than to be exonerated for their cruel and disgusting, politically charged, exploitation of this tragedy.

Governor Palin has no doubt been put through a lot over this entire ordeal. She stated during the interview with Sean Hannity, she and her family have been receiving death threats. She has be maligned as an accessory to murder, along with the Tea Party, and certain talk radio hosts. She never said or did anything to provoke such a heinous crime, but then again, she never has done anything to merit the amount of hatred the left throws her way either.

She doesn't owe anyone one an apology. The media, and the Democrat party owe apologies to everyone they linked to the blood spilled in Arizona. Most importantly, they owe an apology to the victims and their families for making a political circus out of their grief. Sadly, nobody will be receiving any apologies from the press or the left because to do so would solidify the reality of what they have done.