A responsible post

The Dish has a good post about the shooting of Rep. Giffords that doesn’t jump to any conclusions and carefully considers the dangers of inflammatory rhetoric by both politicians and media professionals.

The post was called “An Asassination” but the title has been changed to “An Assasination?” The lines

We don’t know who killed congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and we should be very cautious in drawing any conclusions yet about why. But we can know that, whoever killed her and for whatever reason, political rhetoric involving words like “target” and “gun-sights” is inherently irresponsible.

We don’t know who tried to kill congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (she appears to be still alive) and we should be very cautious in drawing any conclusions yet about why. But we can know that, whoever tried to kill her and for whatever reason, political rhetoric involving words like “target” and “gun-sights” is inherently irresponsible.

The first line of the post is hackneyed:

When a congresswoman is shot in the head in the very act of democracy, we should all pause

— in “the very act of democracy”? But these lines at the end are not:

Giffords was one of twenty members of Congress placed within metaphorical “gun-sights” in SarahPac’s graphic. That is not the same thing as placing a gun-sight over someone’s face or person […] It is compounded by the kind of language used by the Arizona Wildcat as well. Maybe “Palin Reloads; Aims For Giffords” is good copy as a headline. But next time, an editor should surely pause before enabling forces whose capacity for violence is real.

In general, how might that apply to the Dish? Is to accuse governments of murder and ubiquitous and thorough violations of human rights never “enabling forces whose capacity for violence is real”?

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: