Jimmy Hoffa and the Tea Party

When two organizations are so radically different in nature and purpose, it becomes easy for strong and sometimes violent rhetoric to be employed. Such is the case with the loosely-confederated grassroots movement known as the "Tea Party" and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (aka the Teamsters Union), particularly it's President, Jimmy Hoffa. 

As I noted in my previous post about the Tuscon shootings, the Tea Party has been often criticized in the media for the use of unnecessarily violent rhetoric. For the most part, individuals like Sarah Palin or some nameless poster-holder are criticized for invoking harsh and sometimes violent language to get their points across. For the most part, however, despite what news outlets like the Huffington Post would tell you, Tea Party gatherings and rallies are almost never seriously violent, and reports say that they are even less violent than past anti-war protests.

On the other hand, little media attention is given to the violence committed by traditionally left-wing organizations like labor unions. As recently as a few weeks ago, there have been violent conflicts involving protesting unions. However, one instance of violent union rhetoric has received significant coverage, presumably because of the proximity of President Obama to the scene. 

"Let's take these sons of bitches out!" yelled Teamster Union President Jimmy Hoffa as President Obama waited in the wings. Hoffa told his predominately Union-affiliated crowd on September 5th that the Tea Party was waging a "war on workers" and that he and his Union "army" was "ready to march." Admirably and obviously, the President has tried to distance himself from these remarks, especially given his party's call for reduced and peaceful rhetoric from their Republican foes. 

Some good lessons as well as questions can be learned from this disturbing event. Does the media concentrate on right-wing rhetoric and "vitriol" while pushing similar left-wing events aside? Can the mainstream media be trusted to accurately deliver the news in an unbiased fashion? I, and I'm sure most of you, would hope that is not the case. We'll explore it more in future posts.

Gabrielle Giffords and Sarah Palin

Perhaps the most high-profile recent act of violence in America was the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011. Nineteen people were shot in a grocery store parking lot by a 22 year old young man, Jared Loughner. On top of that, a Federal Judge, John Roll was killed and a United States Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head and was thought to be fatally wounded. Thankfully, many of the people who were shot, including the Congresswoman, survived the attack.

After the dust had cleared in Southern Arizona, many (especially those in the media) were quick to look for someone to blame. Somehow, it was not Jared Loughner who received the most criticism. It wasn't his parents. It wasn't security. It wasn't some terrible influence on Loughner. It was the former Vice Presidential Candidate and Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Michael Daly, a staff writer for the New York Daily News, wrote this story, entitled "Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district."

Palin, an often controversial Republican speaker and strategist, is quoted in the opening of Daly's article: "Don't retreat! Instead - RELOAD!" Obviously, the quote is taken out of context, a fairly weak way to open the article. He goes on to accuse Palin of "at the very least" being responsible for being a part of the culture of violence that lead to the tragedy in January. To finish the obvious smear piece, Daly pokes at Palin's Alaskan roots: "And, now that Palin may have the blood of more than some poor caribou on her hands, I wonder if she will continue putting people in cross hairs and calling on folks to RELOAD!"


After reading the article, it is clear that Daly is capable of some incredible mental gymnastics. To connect a horrible massacre perpetrated by one clearly deranged individual to any sort of unrelated political figure (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) is absurd. To attempt to use such an event for political gain is simply horrifying and that is clearly what Daly is attempting to do here. You could never read another one of his articles and know that he obviously is oriented with the political left. I hope this article is as ineffective on others as it was on me, it is truly a shame to see one columnist help hurt the reputation of so many others. 

Introduction

Hello and welcome to my blog!

Over the semester, I plan on analyzing the topic of violent rhetoric as it is portrayed in the mainstream media. By the mainstream media, I am referring predominately to 24 hour major news networks such as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and the like. I plan to analyze the use of certain language used by these networks and their ilk as well as cover their analysis of the controversial "rhetoric and vitriol" that is so often referred to. Many of my examples will likely be political in nature, but I will try earnestly to criticize fairly and in a politically neutral fashion; I will attempt to be "fair and balanced", just as these networks claim to be.

There are already widely-accepted stereotypes concerning these media outlets. Most are often criticized for being a part of the "mainstream left-wing media", while a couple are described as advocates for right-wing conservative people and causes. I will try to ignore these established stereotypes in my analysis, but will keep them in mind when a point needs to be made.

From blaming conservative rhetoric from figureheads like Sarah Palin for the recent tragedy in Arizona to blaming President Barack Obama for all the world's problems, I will do my best to distinguish who is being fair in their use and analysis of violent rhetoric and who is making mountains out of molehills.

I hope you will read and enjoy.

Thomas Reckling '12