THE MEDIA and POLITICAL RHETORIC: The aftermath of the Gabby Giffords shooting

The attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) calls into question the state of political dialogue in our country.  Over the last several years, the use of violent rhetoric, metaphors and images has increased dramatically and has been aided by the insatiable quest for controversy in the media.  Inflammatory remarks by our elected leaders and media stars often go unchallenged leaving the viewer/listener with the wrong impression or completely misinformed. 

During the debate on energy legislation, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called on her constituents to be “armed and dangerous” in the face of what she said were nefarious actions by Congress and claimed to be “behind enemy lines.”  No explanation was demanded by the interviewer with whom she was speaking to clarify her remarks.

The 2010 Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, Sharron Angle, called for the use of “Second Amendment remedies” to stop Congress if she didn’t win her race against Harry Reid.  She frequently asked the voters of her state to “take out” Reid.  The media in this instance asked candidate Angle for an explanation and the candidate denied ever making such a statement.  But the use of the violent metaphor “take out Harry Reid” went unchallenged as to her meaning.

The 2010 election cycle saw the rise of the Tea Party in American politics.  Many of the participants at their rallies carried signs using an out of context quote by Thomas Jefferson about liberty.  Right wing web sites had bumper stickers designed with that message:

            The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots…and tyrants.

Rarely, if ever, was the quote put into context by the media or were organizers of the Tea Party asked whether they were proposing armed insurrection. 

The former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate and the half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, included a “target” list of 20 Democratic members of Congress that her political action committee wanted to defeat in the 2010 midterms.  To indicate which members were targets, she used the crosshairs of a rifle’s scope to mark the location of the congressional districts on a map.  Representative Giffords was one of the “targets” on the map.  When asked about the use of the word target combined with a gun’s crosshairs, Palin dismissed it as meaningless.  The media accepted her explanation and went about its business obsessively giving undeserved attention to the former governor.

Fox News star, Glenn Beck, frequently uses violent rhetoric in his broadcasts.  Media Matters published an article compiling many of the instances in which Beck incited violence by using inflammatory metaphors or images.  Beck repeatedly has claimed he will forever be a “progressive hunter”.  The rest of the TV media world refuses to take Fox News to task for allowing one of their hosts to fear-monger to such an extreme level and implicitly promote violence.

The current attempt in Congress by Republicans to repeal the health care law passed by the Democrats and signed by President Obama is another example of violent rhetoric.  Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) introduced the repeal legislation with the title of “Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”.  Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) is calling for Cantor to change the title of the bill out of respect for Rep. Giffords.  Up until her request, no one questioned the use of the term “job-killing” in the title.  Not only is it factually inaccurate, it is inflammatory and unnecessary. 

Historically, the left has used their share of violent rhetoric, too.  During the Vietnam War in the late 1960’s, groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Chicago Seven, the Weathermen, and the Black Panther Party were advocating violence to achieve its goals.  There was never any doubt in the minds of a majority of Americans that these groups were radical.  America had limited media availability in those days with only three television networks broadcasting 30 minutes of news weeknights, Sunday morning news shows, news magazines and newspapers.  Fringe elements of society were covered if they made news but they were accurately depicted as being out of the mainstream.  There were no 24 hour cable news channels with the need to fill hours of airtime with unsubstantiated opinion in order to appear “fair and balanced”, so the viewer had a clearer understanding as to the nature of the protestors and protests.

The current vitriol in political speech must stop.  Americans understand the fact that political debate can be heated and partisan.  We do have passionate views on many issues and it is good for people to debate the issues of the day vociferously.  But that is no excuse to cross the line and use language that could incite violence as a way to settle our political disagreements.  While it is true that an overwhelming majority of Americans understand that political talk is just talk.  Some people lose sight of that reality and have their passions so inflamed that they become irrational.  For it is never a majority of people storming the Capitol and taking over by force.  Usually, it is the lone gunman who decides that he must take matters into his own hands and commits an unspeakable act of violence.    

Our elected officials have a duty to stop their use of violent rhetoric and violent metaphors.  But it is up to the media to do their jobs as journalists and challenge inflammatory language and force people to explain and defend their rhetoric.  To continue on the current path with no changes, means the overcharged atmosphere will go on unabated and another assassination attempt remains a real possibility.