MSNBC’s Non Sequitur Marathon

It is an established fact that the man who killed six people and wounded 12 other people in Tucson was not a Republican. Or a conservative. He didn’t even vote in 2010.

Jared Loughner is a psychotic who bore an irrational grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Why, then, is MSNBC treating its viewers to hour after hour of discussions today about how Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sharron Angle and others engaged in irresponsible rhetoric that allegedly could incite people to violence?

It’s a complete non sequitur. At this moment, I’m watching Hardball, where Chris Matthews opened his show with 15 minutes of this nonsense. Nick Gillespie nails it:

Readers of this site know I’m no Sarah Palin fan, but to accuse her of complicity in the murderous spree of a clearly insane person is one of the main reasons that partisan political parties are losing market share. I had myself tweeted that blaming Palin for Jared Loughner’s mass killing would be like blaming J.D. Salinger for Mark David Chapman shooting John Lennon (and as Jesse Walker pointed out, in Chapman’s case, at least we could be sure Chapman had read Salinger).

UPDATE: Olbermann’s on now, insisting that anyone who doesn’t share his pretzel-logic perspective — Sarah Palin’s “target” map must somehow be implicated in the Giffords shooting — is irresponsible. But the demented crackpot (i.e., Loughner, not Olbermann) was living in Kookville, as Allahpundit says:

Yeah, go figure that a guy who spent the summer making nonsensical outbursts in class and answering questions on a math test with “Eat+Sleep+Brush Teeth=Math” wasn’t all that interested in the midterm elections.

UPDATE II: Olbermann keeps going on and on about a “climate of hate,” etc., and yet fails to see that there is no relationship between anything said by Sarah Palin (Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle, etc.) and Loughner’s crime. What part of non sequitur don’t you understand, Keith?

A Very Special Comment

My 12-year-old son delivers a reply to someone with a gigantic ego and a miniscule audience:

Here’s the script:

Saturday’s shootings in Tucson, Arizona were hateful and tragic, the senseless and desperate deeds of a demented man. All decent Americans mourn the lives lost and irreparably damaged by this atrocious act of insane violence.
Yet another act of hateful insanity was committed Saturday, an act for which the perpetrator has not been held accountable. His weapon was not a gun, but a cable television network, and his ammunition was a diatribe as demented in its own way as anything ever posted on the Internet by Jared Lee Loughner.
I speak, of course, of Keith Olbermann.
For too many years, Olbermann has been permitted to hector Americans with his deranged rantings, festooned with polysyllabic adjectives and elaborate analogies. There is no political conflict too mundane, nor any legislative battle too routine, for MSNBC’s primetime host to whip out a comparison to Hitler and the Third Reich. And in these overblown Olbermann metaphors, it is always Republicans and conservatives who are cast as Nazis.
On Saturday, it was revealed that the Tucson shooter was a 22-year-old man with a history of drug abuse. A high-school friend of the gunman described him as a “political radical,” whose views were “quite liberal,” even “left wing.”
Yet we cannot hold the Democratic Party responsible for this madman’s violence. Neither should we blame Daily Kos and other liberal bloggers, nor even such irresponsible TV demagogues as Dylan Ratigan and Ed Schultz.
Police say that the man who committed the Arizona shooting is in custody. Jared Lee Loughner has the right to be presumed innocent unless and until he is found guilty by a jury of his peers. But so far as we know, one man alone pulled the trigger. He alone is to blame, and he alone will pay the penalty for his crimes.
This was not good enough, however, for Keith Olbermann.
In an attempt to score cheap political points from Saturday’s shooting, Olbermann treated his viewers to one of the most shamelessly irresponsible lectures in his long, sad history of shameless irresponsibility. His “Special Comment” was indeed special, although probably not in the way Olbermann intended. He named Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle. He named Jesse Kelly and Allen West. He named Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement. Olbermann named all of these people in his Saturday “Special Comment,” suggesting that they were somehow responsible for the shooting in Tucson. But they were not responsible, neither directly nor indirectly.
There is nothing — not one shred of evidence, not one word of testimony — suggesting that any of these people named by Keith Olbermann did anything that in any way inspired Jared Loughner’s criminal madness.
Olbermann accused innocent people of encouraging a horrible crime. If we may borrow one of Olbermann’s favorite tactics, we might say that Olbermann committed what Hitler called The Big Lie. And we might also say that Olbermann tried to turn the Tucson shooting into the Reichstag fire.
The producers and executives at MSNBC permitted Olbermann to deliver his hateful sermon. And the advertisers on MSNBC paid for it. The good news, of course, is that hardly anyone watched it.
Olbermann’s audience is so small that his show is seen by fewer viewers than a lot of YouTube videos. For all his dramatic language, for all the bombastic delivery of his exaggerated self-important political sermonettes, Olbermann attracts at most a few hundred thousand viewers five nights a week. His audience is not one-tenth as large as the number of people who hear Rush Limbaugh’s radio show every day.
As a commercial enterprise, then, Olbermann’s program is a complete failure. Olbermann’s ratings have fallen, and they can’t get up. Yet MSNBC continues to give this pompous gasbag their eight-o’clock hour, and pay him millions of dollars a year, as if he were such a success that their network could not survive without him.
It remains to be seen how long they can continue this sad charade. Will Olbermann be on MSNBC at 8 p.m. each weeknight forever? Will the network sustain him, no matter how low his ratings go? Will he be allowed to continue lecturing America until, at last, his audience shrinks to zero?
Americans don’t need your sanctimonious sermons, Mr. Olbermann. We don’t get our moral lessons from MSNBC.
We believe in basic truths that were already well-known long before you ever showed up to lecture us on cable TV.
And we don’t need a lot of fancy words to explain things as simple as “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Good night, Mr. Olbermann.
Good night, and good riddance.

Thanks to Jefferson as the anchorman, thanks to the cameraman (Emerson, age 10) and thanks to Mrs. Other McCain for putting up with our silly blog projects.

UPDATE: Somebody noticed:

A “panicked defense of hate speech“? That’s called projection, Keith. Look it up.

‘Unbalanced People … Respond to the Vitriol That Comes Out of Certain Mouths’

Yeah, that’s what Sheriff Dupnik said, and here’s CNN video:

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has the documents from the criminal charges filed against Jared Loughner. But obviously, Sheriff Dupnik has a point. And I think we know who, more than anyone else in America, is responsible for unloading unspeakably hateful “vitriol” into the minds of “unbalanced people”:

Keith Olbermann named Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Allen West, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the Tea Party movement as somehow responsible for Loughner’s crime. He named them without any evidence or testimony indicating they had anything to do with it. This was indeed a “Special Comment,” and certainly it deserves a special reply.

UPDATE: Noel Sheppard: “ABC Interviews Friend of Giffords Shooter, Ignores Her Claim He’s Liberal.”

It’s not just one network or a handful of tendentious commentators. The atrociously biased reporting — the guilt-by-association tactics even when there is no actual association — we have seen in the coverage of this crime can only be termed the MSNBC-ization of the media.

Speculation Is Not Reporting

That is the lesson that journalists (and bloggers) ought to learn from yesterday’s coverage of the Arizona mass murder:

Less than four hours transpired between the time the shootings occurred in the parking lot of a Tucson grocery store and the time the Associated Press identified 22-year-old Loughner as the suspect. The first AP bulletin to identify him misspelled his name “Laughner,” and another couple of hours passed while reporters, bloggers and amateur newshounds corrected the spelling and began to assemble enough background on Loughner to get some idea of what inspired this crime.
Jared Loughner is crazy.
That simple four-word sentence adequately summarizes Loughner’s apparent motives. However, in the five or six hours between the shooting — in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was among a dozen people wounded, and six people including a federal judge were killed — some reporters apparently felt obligated to fill the information void with reporting that fed into a frenzy of political speculation. . . .

Please read the rest of that at The American Spectator.

You may have noticed that I haven’t yet posted anything here about the second “person of interest” being sought by law enforcement in connection with this Arizona shooting. That’s because my hunch is that this person wasn’t actually complicit in Jared Loughner’s crime. Police want to question the guy, but given the testimony that Loughner was a “loner” and evidence that he was mentally ill, I rather doubt that this will turn out to have been a folie à deux. Continue reading Speculation Is Not Reporting →

OMFG: Katy Couric Says, ‘Maybe We Need a Muslim Version of ‘The Cosby Show’

Yes, she really said that. When I heard the audio Steve Foley posted at the Minority Report, I could scarcely believe it. How could anyone — even Katie Couric — be so incredibly stupid as to say this aloud?

“Maybe we need a Muslim version of ‘The Cosby Show.’ . . . I know it sounds crazy, but ‘The Cosby Show’ did so much to change attitudes about African-Americans in this country and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand.”

Of the many layers of stupid in Couric’s comment, the first that comes to mind is this: Is the real problem America’s attitudes toward Muslims, or rather is the real problem Muslims’ attitude toward America?

But I’m sure the commenters will be able to point out many other nuances of stupidity here. Meanwhile, go to The Minority Report and listen to the whole two-minute audio clip.

Via Memeorandum, there’s more from Mediaite,  Michelle Malkin, The Right Scoop, Gateway Pundit, Scared Monkeys, Ed Driscoll and Weasel Zippers

UPDATE: OK, let’s peel back another layer or two of Katie Couric’s onion of stupidity. Could her analogy of (a) black Americans circa 1984 and (b) Muslims in 2010 possibly be more insultingly unfair to black people? Continue reading OMFG: Katy Couric Says, ‘Maybe We Need a Muslim Version of ‘The Cosby Show’ →

Late Entry in the ‘Stupidest Things Liberals Said in 2010’ Sweepstakes

Harvard-educated Ezra Klein updates Orwell’s famous maxim: “One has to work at The Washington Post to believe things like that. No ordinary man could be such a fool.”

On MSNBC, Klein was asked about plans of the 112th Congress to read the Constitution aloud:

“Yes, it’s a gimmick. I mean, you could say two things about it. One is that it has no binding power on anything. And then, two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following it. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person, and differs depending on what they want to get done. So I wouldn’t expect too much coming out of this.”

Ezra has attempted a walk-back, but not before inspiring a devastating Iowahawk parody.

My apologies for being the last blogger on top of this particular dogpile, but somebody in the blogosphere must be assigned to keep up with Natalie Portman’s lesbian scenes and I drew the short straw.

Media Headwinds, Media Tailwinds

Ace of Spades describes a basic truth of American politics:

The liberal media sells liberal candidates as brilliant and even-tempered and “sophisticated” and “nuanced” of thought; all of these are non-ideological attributes which appeal to most, whatever one’s politics. And they need to do this, as only about 25% of the country can be persuaded to come along on the basic liberal message of higher taxes, more spending, more government power to dictate the affairs of men, and less freedom.
Meanwhile, Republican candidates get the opposite treatment from the media. I’ve noted before that every single Republican candidate is claimed by the media to be:

1. Stupid
2. Evil
3. Crazy
4. Out-of-touch

…and pretty much you can categorize every Republican office-seeker since Eisenhower (Out of touch) in this way. Nixon: Evil and Crazy; Reagan: Stupid and Crazy and possibly Evil; Bush I: Out of touch; Bush II: Stupid, Crazy, Out of Touch and Evil.

Brilliant as it is, Ace’s post doesn’t exhaust the endless variety of ways in which the media help elect Democrats. For instance, when Democrats are in office, the media can simply ignore the existence of opposition.

During the recent midterm congressional campaign, many Republican candidates were quite nearly ignored by local media. In fact, if you had been reading local newspapers in some key competitive districts, you’d have scarcely known there was an election coming up — much less that the incumbent Democrat was locked in a fight for his political life.

And this kind of non-coverage continued until the folks picked up their paper the Wednesday morning after Election Day and saw — for the first time in a front-page headline — the name of the previously ignored Republican who’d just gotten elected to Congress.

Those of us who followed the recent election might have thought, for example, that Orlando-area papers would have covered the FL-8 race between Alan Grayson and Daniel Webster the way the Tuscaloosa News covers the University of Alabama football team: Exhaustively, as the only game in town.

But it wasn’t that way at all and, with few exceptions, local newspaper coverage of campaigns in the top 70 or 80 competitive congressional races ranged from sporadic to minimal. So these papers voluntarily forfeited the readership they might have attracted if they had hyped up the mid-terms as The Most Important Election in Our Nation’s History.

Anyway, that wasn’t what Ace was talking about. He was explaining the media’s shameless overselling of Obama, and you ought to read the whole thing.