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.
Howdy Thomas,
ReplyDeleteIn reading your analysis of this article i could not agree more with your stance. The author clearly put a political spin on what was honestly a deranged act of violence. To the unconscious reader the out of context comments might give the hint of political motivation, yet the deeper psyche of the shooter is the true cause of the shooting. There is an obvious bias and motive behind the article. Great article!
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely on your analysis of this article and I'm glad you chose this particular article to analyze. Although both political parties, as well as everything in between, has participated in taking things out of context or whatever needs to be done to take down the other side and put their side's political views in the best light, I feel as though I come across so many attacks against conservatives that are simply erroneous and illogical. The reasoning and sometimes even "data" from research seems to leave out many details and end at a conclusion that does not logically follow their arguing points. Not to mention how many personal attacks are directed towards conservatives like Bush and Palin, despite the fact that those attacks have nothing to do with their ability to do their designated duties for their position. Not only is this article an example of extreme bias, with things taken completely out of context, but the argument he makes has absolutely no grounds - research on multiple victim mass public shootings is not hard to obtain and if any research was done at all this article would likely cease to exist. I agree with you that his article not only tarnishes his creditability but also that of others who may be associated with his political agenda.