Man, M.Z. Hemingway is on fire over the very, very different treatment the MSM gave to Sarah Palin in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting, versus how they’re treating the Southern Poverty Law Center in the wake of Floyd Corkins’ guilty plea. Excerpts:
The mainstream media narrative, initially, was that a right wing Tea Party supporter acting under the orders of Sarah Palin had assassinated a sitting member of Congress. Precisely none of that was true or even close to true, but it didn’t keep the media from pushing a particular narrative about it for some time. (It wasn’t the biggest religion story, per se, but see our posts here, here and here) I also wrote a post about the role that alternate realities played in the shooting and media coverage of same. The shooter was said to engage in alternate realities. But, I argued,the same might be said of the media, feverishly trying to create a world where political opponents could be blamed for the most brutal crimes imaginable even if the facts didn’t support that.
For days the media focused on the need for civility, and how this shooting was the result of conservative political rhetoric. Some media outlets suggested that campaign and battle words be avoided when talking about politics. See, a PAC associated with Sarah Palin had put out a map with races to “target” and had identified those “targets” with crosshairs. The Atlantic Wire highlighted some of The Atlantic‘s writers on the matter in a piece headlined “Did Sarah Palin’s Target Map Play Role in Giffords Shooting?”
M0llie lists many more stories from the MSM exploring the possible connection between conservative rhetoric and the Giffords shooting — this, even though it emerged that the shooter, Jared Loughner, was profoundly mentally ill, and neither Palin’s rhetoric nor anybody else’s had a thing to do with this shooting. There were even pieces (e.g., a Psychology Today essay Mollie links to) exploring the role that violent rhetoric plays in creating an atmosphere in which acts like Loughner’s take place. The media flooded the zone, in other words.
But now? Here’s Mollie:
So yesterday, Floyd Lee Corkins II pleaded guilty to three criminal counts involving his August 2012 attack on the Washington D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council. He told the FBI that he picked his target from a “hate map“ (!) on the web site of the Southern Poverty Law Center. That’s the liberal group that is frequently used as a legitimate source in news reports (I sort of thought they jumped the shark when they identified “pick-up artists” as hate groups but this Reason archive might be worth a read for developing a tad of skepticism of their treatment by the media).
OK, so we have a real criminal who cites a real “hate map” as a key factor in his violence. How do you suppose the media treated that story?
Read Mollie’s entire entry for the answer. Her observation on how the Washington Post downplays this aspect of the story is acute.
On cultural issues, the media really, really is despicably biased. And they have no idea. None at all.
Linda 
Senescent 
JohnG 
Steven 
Andrea 
Clamdigger 
Thomas Andrews 
M.B. 
Consequences2 
Bobby 
The Southern Poverty Law Center is neither concerned about the law or poverty. It is basically a Left Wing shake down organization that scares little old ladies into donating to their organization by saying that there is a Nazi behind every bush.
Reality, as usual, is a bit more nuanced than that (pardon my French). SPLC began with a focus on helping populations subject to genuine terrorism and slightly less violence but still odious forms of manipulation and intimidation, mostly people of African or Jewish descent, and remember, in those days, the Klan still hated Catholics also. I’ve heard some Klan remnants have decided Catholics are white people, and eligible for membership. I’ve also read that many Catholics were offended to hear it.
Anyway… from these laudable beginnings, SPLC seems to have branched out, partly perhaps motivated by the usual organizational imperative of finding something to do to justify the next fundraising cycle and avoid laying off staff… and now it has a long list of “hates” that really shouldn’t qualify.
For example, as I’ve argued many times, for any person or organization to suggest that homosexual acts are Not A Good Thing, for medical, biological, or religious reasons, is legitimate speech, not to be blithely denounced as “bigotry.” Conversely, people who disagree have a right to say so without being castigated as demons from the pit of hell.
So, maybe SPLC’s time is past, or maybe it needs to refocus on its “core mission,” and no, I don’t want my name on any “Wall of Tolerance.” I recall that Martin Luther King, Jr. said “I don’t like the sound of that word. I don’t want anyone to tolerate me. I want my rights under the Constitution.”
Now Red Phillips, if you could stop spluttering long enough to exercise some thought… you might have gleaned from my etc. ad absurdum that I wasn’t really rating my opinion any higher than yours… just highlighting that for any of us to mount a soap box and splutter an opinionated statement is not particularly edifying to anyone.
But as for separate but equal demonizing, everyone nattering about this “liberal media,” everyone who denounces a “gay agenda” that is taking over the country, everyone who despises liberalism but hasn’t read a word about William Gladstone… are all running about the same level of mindless “hate speech” as SPLC is being accused of.
Oh, the longing for comfortable martyrdom among the comfortable would-be Christians of the modern world!
Like Engineer Scotty says, the way to fight speech is with more speech.