NYT: Say, maybe we should have waited for the facts before blaming the Right

posted at 1:55 pm on January 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Don’t worry, though, because the New York Times’ public editor (their term for ombudsman) “shares the view to an extent” (emphasis mine) that the Times and the media rushed to put the Tucson shootings in a political context.  Well, that’s certainly a relief.  So whose fault was it that the Times pursued it to the extent of having its editorial board issue an essay the very next day putting the blame on the Right, saying that “it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats”?  Uh … genetics, or something:

So why does a story get framed this way? Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit — one of relating new facts to an existing storyline — and also as a reflex of news organizations that are built to handle some topics well, and others less well.

Jerry Ceppos, dean of the journalism school at the University of Nevada, Reno, said journalists’ impulse to quickly impose a frame on a story is “genetic.”

“Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,” he said. “Today’s hyper-deadlines, requiring journalists to report all day long and all night long, made that genetic disposition even more dominant.”

To be fair, there were some good reasons to steer the coverage initially in this direction. As Rick Berke, the national editor, said: “Our coverage early on was broad and touched everything from the possible shooter to the victims to the reaction to, yes, the political climate in Arizona. By our count, there were 49 stories in the paper the first six days after the tragedy, of which only 14 were political in nature. But it would be ridiculous for us to neglect that. After all, a politician was shot in the head while meeting with constituents. That same lawmaker had her office vandalized during an especially rancorous campaign. And after the shooting the sheriff called his state the capital of hatred and bigotry.”

Still, I think the intense focus on political conflict — not just by The Times — detracted from what has emerged as the salient story line, that of a mentally ill individual with lawful access to a gun.

Er, no, to be fair, there were no good reasons to steer the coverage in any direction.  In fact, Arthur Brisbane’s notion that steering coverage of a breaking event is journalism should come as a rude awakening to the few defenders the Times still has.  Why “steer the coverage” at all until the facts came out?  Within a couple of hours, the gunman had been identified and enough was known about him to understand that he was a lunatic, not a political activist.  Yet even after those facts became known and verified, the editorial board published its attack on the Right, implicitly blaming conservatives for the tragedy while using just enough weasel words to cover their own rear ends in case the witch hunt blew up in its face.

Ironically, Brisbane starts off the column by scolding the Times’ bloggers for repeating the erroneous NPR report of Giffords’ death without having its editors fact-check it first:

Ms. McElroy said, “I should have looked at every change,” but she thought Mr. Goodman was referring to small stuff. Mr. Goodman told me he then erred by reporting Representative Giffords’s death in the lead as though The Times itself were standing behind the information. In any event, Ms. McElroy had said O.K. without seeing that change, so Mr. Goodman pushed the button.

The result was a news story with changes that were not edited. Less than 10 minutes later, a new story appeared with the words “and killed” stricken.

“Nobody should self-publish,” said Philip B. Corbett, standards editor for The Times. “Everything should go through an editor. Ideally, it should go through two editors.”

Why?  So that they can “steer the coverage” to their liking?   In the case of the Times, the editors appear to be the problem, not the solution.  The failure of the Times on this story had nothing to do with self-publishing a factual error that they quickly corrected, but an editorial decision to focus on a meme that was known to be false long before the editors themselves hit the publish button.  Brisbane apparently doesn’t want to talk about that; he’d prefer that the Times stick to giving its readers one bum steer after another.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Kessler is a NY Times author, there’s no reason to expect facts from him.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Go look at my link.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:44 PM

The implication is that Republicans and the Tea Party may not have been directly responsible, but they might be indirectly responsible. There is no reason otherwise for “directly” to be in that sentence.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Ah, so it was “implied.” As AP would say: nuance.

I think this is a pretty good example of you guys reading things into the media’s response. There are plenty of reasons “directly” could have been in there, in fact could have been in there for no reason at all. If the NYT had thought Republicans were somehow responsible for the murders, they could have, and would have simply said so. Instead they took care to note that Republicans were in fact not responsible.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM

The primary responsibility of the New York Times is to attack conservatives, a duty which they uphold faithfully and with gusto.

I don’t see the problem.

malclave on January 17, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Apparently it won’t let me post the link….But crr6 is wrong about the increase in threats against Obama.

From CNN:

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, in an interview with CNN earlier this week, also said he was told the presidential threat level has not gone up under Obama.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Go look at my link.
JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:44 PM

I’m sorry…what link are you referring to?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM

^^^^ And that ladies and gentlemen, is the level of honesty you get from the left today … none. Which seeing as crr6 wants to be a lawyer, is very apropos.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM

OT/ Bamsters approval rating didn’t get a bump from the most awesome pep rally he was cheered at….

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/01/obamas-approval-ratings-do-not-improve-after-his-speech-according-to-gallup-and-rasmussen.html

wi farmgirl on January 17, 2011 at 3:49 PM

If the NYT had thought Republicans were somehow responsible for the murders, they could have, and would have simply said so.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM

But since they knew they couldn’t prove Republicans were somehow responsible for the murders but wanted to create that impression anyway, they used weasel words and pseudo-disclaimers so that miserable liars like you could claim they didn’t do what they clearly did.

Jim Treacher on January 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Oh and I think he worked for WaPo once upon a time too but am not sure. He’s regarded as a conservative by many moderates but I doubt he would be seen as one here.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM

I think

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM

No evidence to support that assertion. But then, evidence isn’t really valued in your line of work, is it?

I saw enough printed and televised reports that may have pretended not to blame Republicans, but made sure that the ONLY examples they gave of “incivility” were of Republicans. Add to those the opinion and (likely astroturfed) letters reinforcing the attack on Republicans, and anyone paying attention would recognize the bias.

malclave on January 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Apparently it won’t let me post the link….But crr6 is wrong about the increase in threats against Obama.
JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Meh, my source is Secret Service agents, yours is from a Congresswoman who says she was “told” something (by whom?). I’ll let observers decide which is more credible.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I’m sorry…what link are you referring to?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM

google — Kessler threats bush obama. Third link on the page. The article disputes Kessler’s claim.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

they could have, and would have simply said so. Instead they took care to note that Republicans were in fact not responsible.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Along with the strong implication that they tacitly added ‘this time damn it, but just wait’.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Your source is debunked in my link, which for some reason this site won’t allow me to post. Nice try, though, crr6.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:52 PM

The entire CNN story:

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama is not facing more threats to his life or security than the previous two presidents, according to the Secret Service.

At a hearing Thursday, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said “the threats right now in the inappropriate interest that we are seeing is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point.”

Sullivan rejected a figure in a recently published book by Ronald Kessler, “In the President’s Secret Service.” Kessler says the threat has increased 400 percent since Obama, the nation’s first African-American president, took office.

In October, Kessler told CNN he stands by the figure even though a law enforcement source had told CNN it’s false.

“There is about 3,000 threats a year under President Bush and now there are about 12,000. Of course, most of them are not credible, but they all have to be checked out,” Kessler told CNN’s “The Situation Room” in an interview with Wolf Blitzer in October.

He said he got the figure “originally from another agency, but I went over it with the Secret Service.”

Sullivan, at a Congressional hearing about how a couple allegedly crashed a state dinner, brought up the 400 percent figure and rejected it, adding that he is “not sure where that number came from.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, in an interview with CNN earlier this week, also said he was told the presidential threat level has not gone up under Obama.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Meh, my source is Secret Service agents, yours is from a Congresswoman who says she was “told” something (by whom?). I’ll let observers decide which is more credible.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

From December 2009, following reports of increased death threats.

If the NYT had thought Republicans were somehow responsible for the murders, they could have, and would have simply said so. Instead they took care to note that Republicans were in fact not responsible.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM

The typical leftoid “Who, us?” response after getting egg on their faces. Again.

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Well, here’s the quote again:

By Toby Harnden in Washington 8:34PM BST 03 Aug 2009
Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service.

So for the sake of argument let’s take Ronald Kessler’s data as truth, even though he is not an official source and the information comes from a book he was trying to sell at that time.

Note the date: August 3, 2009. Harnden reports that Kessler book says that death threats are up 400% from Bush’s AVERAGE over 8 years, which is 3,000K/year.

Any time someone wants to contrast the current rate of X athe historical average rate of X over many years, my antennae start to tingle.

So, some more questions:

When did Kessler’s book (the only source for the data that Harnden uses) go to press? Maybe June 2009? So his data is, at best, late January 2009 through late June 2009 – a five-month spread. What was the rate of threats to Bush during that same 5-month spread in 2001? What was the rate after 9/11? After we entered Iraq? What is the rate of threats to Obama now, in January 2011?

You need more data to make the claim that the rate of death threats to Obama is consistently up 400% since Bush. All we know (and again, we have no official source for that) is that during the first five months, it was up 400% from Bush’s average.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Meh, my source is Secret Service agents, yours is from a Congresswoman who says she was “told” something (by whom?). I’ll let observers decide which is more credible.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

LMAO!!!!!!!!!

Even if the threats HAD gone up under Obama, you still have no point.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Thank you!

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Still folks, we are obligated to point out that crr6 is trying, by example, to be ‘civil’. His being wrong is really irrelevant when we are in the presence of such an exemplary left winger. Even untruths can be couched in gracious terms–look at how well Obama does it.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM

At a hearing Thursday, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said “the threats right now in the inappropriate interest that we are seeing is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point.”

Sullivan rejected a figure in a recently published book by Ronald Kessler, “In the President’s Secret Service.”

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Looks like crr6′s “source” is really Secret Squirrel, not the secret service.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Meh, my source is Secret Service agents, yours is from a Congresswoman who says she was “told” something (by whom?). I’ll let observers decide which is more credible.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Oh yeah, just the Director of the Secret Service testifying at a Congressional hearing that Kessler’s number is bunk. But you’ll definitely go with the guy who was trying to pimp his book.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM

At a hearing Thursday, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said “the threats right now in the inappropriate interest that we are seeing is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point.”

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Ok, fair enough. But note that by your guys’ logic, if the threat level under Obama is the same as it was under Bush, it is still extremely high. As jeanie said:

One might also ask who was responsible for the unprecedented number of death threats against Bush.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:20 PM

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Oh yeah, just the Director of the Secret Service testifying at a Congressional hearing that Kessler’s number is bunk. But you’ll definitely go with the guy who was trying to pimp his book.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Nope, I’ll accept JannyMae’s link over mine. The claim from a lone Congresswoman wasn’t credible. Obviously, testimony from the Director of the Secret Service is.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Ok, fair enough. But note that by your guys’ logic, if the threat level under Obama is the same as it was under Bush, it is still extremely high.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM

In other words, you got your ass handed to you. Again. Thanks for playing.

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Even if the threats HAD gone up under Obama, you still have no point.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Ok, so why do you think death threats against Obama are so high? If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Ok, fair enough. But note that by your guys’ logic, if the threat level under Obama is the same as it was under Bush, it is still extremely high.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM

??? Lib logic. How do you know what’s “normal”?

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Ok, so why do you think death threats against Obama are so high? If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Because he’s the president, dumbass.

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 4:04 PM

??? Lib logic. How do you know what’s “normal”?

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I’m just going by what you guys have been saying. Jeanie said the threat level under Bush was “unprecedented.” In JannyMae’s link, the director of the SS said the threat level has been the same under Obama. Therefore, the threat level under Obama is still extremely high.

Or are you contending the threat level was not high under Bush?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Ok, so why do you think death threats against Obama are so high? If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Because Obama and the democrats are passing bills the country neither needs or wants? Because the democrats are ignoring Congress and backdooring Cap and Trade? Internet control?People are frightened of this government.

Don’t blame the messengers. Final responsibility for the actions of democrats lay with democrats.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Ok, so why do you think death threats against Obama are so high? If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

And if all the vitriol and ridicule and demonization from the leftoids against Sarah Palin isn’t to blame in the increase of death threats against her, what is?

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 4:07 PM

In other words, you got your ass handed to you. Again. Thanks for playing.

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Someone provided a better link regarding the death threats. But again, according to your guys’ logic, the threat level has still been very high. And no one has addressed the numerous acts of vandalism against Democratic members of Congress during the health care debate and prior to the 2010 election. My central point still stands.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Well, it’s not 400% more, or even more at all, but it’s still extremely high!

Nice tap-dancing!

I would really like to see you produce the kind of hateful posters, including death threats and beheadings, directed at Obama that the leftists directed against Bush at protest after protest. The hate directed at Bush was definitely unprecedented. You can just sit on your pedestal of denial though. You’re obviously comfortable there.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Or are you contending the threat level was not high under Bush?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I’m not contending anything. I just think it’s funny watching you trying to make something of nothing. “Well ok, the threat level is the same but it’s still extrmemly high! It must be right wingers!!!!!!1!1!1!!!

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:08 PM

And no one has addressed the numerous acts of vandalism against Democratic members of Congress during the health care debate and prior to the 2010 election. My central point still stands.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:08 PM

You mean like someone shooting into Eric Cantor’s office?

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM

You know crr6, chances are very good that most of the threats are coming from the left because Obama was supposed to have installed his Marxist government by now. The left is very impatient as you well know.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Wow, crr6. Those Arthur Murray lessons have really payed off. Are you going to compete on Paula Abdul’s show?

kingsjester on January 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM

You mean like someone shooting into Eric Cantor’s office?

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Yep, things like that. And as I’m sure you know, there were many more acts against Democratic congressmen than Republicans.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM

And no one has addressed the numerous acts of vandalism against Democratic members of Congress during the health care debate and prior to the 2010 election. My central point still stands.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I don’t recall you ever providing any evidence of that claim.

Ok, so why do you think death threats against Obama are so high? If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Apocalyptic? Hysterical much?

You can’t have it both ways. Beck’s rhetoric, in your mind, motivates people to engage in threatening behavior, but you seem oblivious to the threats against the right. I am afraid that you seem more than just a bit hypocritical.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Jim Treacher on January 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Hey, Treach, good to see you slum it over here with all of us other rubes. Drop by again soon.

d1carter on January 17, 2011 at 4:13 PM

I would really like to see you produce the kind of hateful posters, including death threats and beheadings, directed at Obama that the leftists directed against Bush at protest after protest. The hate directed at Bush was definitely unprecedented. You can just sit on your pedestal of denial though.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:08 PM

What am I denying? I accepted your contention that the threats against Bush were “unprecedented,” and that, under your own link, the threats against Obama have been the same. That is to say, extremely high. What do you think the cause of that is?

You know crr6, chances are very good that most of the threats are coming from the left because Obama was supposed to have installed his Marxist government by now.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM

heh.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Yep, things like that. And as I’m sure you know, there were many more acts against Democratic congressmen than Republicans.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Yeah, and at least one of them from a Democrat vandal.

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Or are you contending the threat level was not high under Bush?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I think you have to define “normal” before you can argue that something is high.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Yep, things like that. And as I’m sure you know, there were many more acts against Democratic congressmen than Republicans.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Source please? A legitmate one?

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Yep, things like that. And as I’m sure you know, there were many more acts against Democratic congressmen than Republicans.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Oh geez … here we go again. A fly landing in a democrats soup is reported around the world as a death threat. The media reports(sometimes) threats against Republicans but buries them quickly. The left is insane. I have no doubt that if what you say is true most of those threats come from the left.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Wow. Rove is really defending Palin big time on Hannity Radio. Finally some balls.

Geochelone on January 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM

I don’t recall you ever providing any evidence of that claim.

I provided a link listing some on the previous page.

Apocalyptic? Hysterical much?

…have you watched his show?

You can’t have it both ways. Beck’s rhetoric, in your mind, motivates people to engage in threatening behavior, but you seem oblivious to the threats against the right.

Where have I been oblivious to threats against the Right? I accepted your contention that there was an “unprecedented” level of threats under Bush.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Wow. Rove is really defending Palin big time on Hannity Radio. Finally some balls.

Geochelone on January 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Whaaaaaat? You jest.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:17 PM

See, the real problem is that when death threats were high under Bush, that was okay, since the media was encouraging negative stories about Bush. But when the same level persists under Obama, that is not okay, since the media now wants to discourage negative views of Obama.

So the real concern within the media is that their megaphone isn’t working as well as they want it to.

drunyan8315 on January 17, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I gotta run for now. I’ll be back later…

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM

…have you watched his show?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Have you? I sincerely doubt you’d even mention Beck’s name if you had. Beck has been calling for nonviolence for at least a couple of years now. The guy preaches open discourse and nonviolence … you should watch.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:21 PM

What am I denying? I accepted your contention that the threats against Bush were “unprecedented,” and that, under your own link, the threats against Obama have been the same. That is to say, extremely high. What do you think the cause of that is? — crr6

No crr6. You are confused. I am not the one that made the original claim that the threats against Bush were unprecedented. That was someone else. I said:

The hate directed at Bush was definitely unprecedented.

So you have just challenged me on something I never said.

I am sure there are multiple reasons for the death threats against both presidents, but if they are no different than under Clinton, I wouldn’t say they were “above normal.”

Some of the threats might even be a result of “Beck’s apocalyptic rhetoric,” but you are making that contention based on nothing more that your assumption that it’s true. That, IMO makes you look like a fool. You’re entitled to your own opinion, of course….

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Where have I been oblivious to threats against the Right? I accepted your contention that there was an “unprecedented” level of threats under Bush.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I never said that. The evidence suggests that there were NOT unprecendted levels of threats under Bush or Obama.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I’ve come to expect it, but the gasps of breath I take, when I read the insipid lies of the left, still astound me.

capejasmine on January 17, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I provided a link listing some on the previous page. –crr6

Not that I can find.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM

I never said that. The evidence suggests that there were NOT unprecendted levels of threats under Bush or Obama.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Honey, you’d think after all the spin that one throws out there, she’d be dizzy by now. Nope. Something not right in the head with that one. ;)

capejasmine on January 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Jerry Ceppos, dean of the journalism school at the University of Nevada, Reno, said journalists’ impulse to quickly impose a frame on a story is “genetic.”

Heh, we had the study saying liberalism is a genetic defect, now journalism?

MNHawk on January 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Even if it’s true that there were more acts of vandalism against Democrats than Republicans, that is still not support for the idea that they were “incited by Beck, et. als. ‘Apocalyptic rhetoric.’”

Oh, to be in the liberal frame of mind where just wishing something makes it so!

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:30 PM

I provided a link listing some on the previous page.

The link you provided was to one article in the NYT from March 2010 during the height of the Obamacare fight. It said there had been “at least 10″ threats to Dems and also listed two threats to Repubs. It is by no means proof of “voluminous threats” “prior to 2010 midterms” which was your previous claim. Or that there were/are substantially more threats against Dems than against Repubs.

It’s just a snapshot, and a selectively recorded one at best. It doesn’t even claim to be exhaustive.

Again, you need more and better data.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I see our resident troll/basement dweller/law student/communist is in fine form today, and has once again been allowed to de-rail yet another thread. All while being intentionally dishonest and ever evasive with positions that cannot be backed up.

Returning to the topic at hand: Within minutes of the news breaking, Sarah Palin was dragged into this mess and blame was laid at her feet. Whether our mouth-breather can see it or not, blame was placed on the Tea Party and Republicans from the very beginning. Probably before Giffords was even in the ambulance.

So suck it, lefties. This stink is all yours.

Dominion on January 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM

If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Well, you get someone like Loughner who already disliked Giffords. Then you mix in Obama’s rhetoric about bringing guns and punishing enemies. Let’s not forget about prominent left-wing web sites writing about putting a bullseye on Gifford, and then just a couple of days before the shooting having someone on the site declare that Giffords is “dead” to him.

Obviously, the problem is that liberals (not necessarily all) are mentally unblanced, and they feed among that lunacy amongst themselves until one of them snaps, jsut like Loughner.

malclave on January 17, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Well, you get someone like Loughner who already disliked Giffords. Then you mix in Obama’s rhetoric about bringing guns and punishing enemies. Let’s not forget about prominent left-wing web sites writing about putting a bullseye on Gifford, and then just a couple of days before the shooting having someone on the site declare that Giffords is “dead” to him.

Obviously, the problem is that liberals (not necessarily all) are mentally unblanced, and they feed among that lunacy amongst themselves until one of them snaps, jsut like Loughner.

malclave on January 17, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Well, there’s also the fact that Loughner is a Bush-hating Troofer. Let’s blame Michael Moore.

ddrintn on January 17, 2011 at 4:41 PM

“Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit.”

Really? I’m a journalism teacher and I never called this a “habit,” unless the words “habit” and “piece of sh!t” mean the same thing.

MaxMBJ on January 17, 2011 at 4:41 PM

They just can’t let it go.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/opinion/17douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

wi farmgirl on January 17, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I accepted your contention that there was an “unprecedented” level of threats under Bush.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Since you are in an accepting mood, here are some flagrant threats by the left:

http://patterico.com/2011/01/12/bad-irony-alert-the-blood-libel-on-palin-resulted-has-resulted-in-an-%E2%80%9Cunprecedented%E2%80%9D-increase-of-death-threats-against-palin/

Just your typical, average, every day, dumbed down liberal scum.

BruthaMan on January 17, 2011 at 4:53 PM

If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

How do you like that lefty meme right there? The all-or-nothing argument. The if-not-this-strawman-of-mine-then-what approach to argumentation.

That’s a weak sauce argumentative tactic but, consider the source.

ted c on January 17, 2011 at 5:08 PM

BruthaMan, don’t forget all the Bush hatred. Gallows, beheadings, “kill Bush,” etc. We’ve probably all seen Malkin’s anthology of that by now.

I wonder if there are ANY examples of that type of thing against Obama. I did a quick google search, and all I came up with was lies from the leftists, including the supposed “kill him” from the crowd where Palin was speaking, that has been long debunked.

The liberals got together and wished for the death of Bush. The conservatives got together and engaged in peaceful protests against spending, taxes, and healthcare. Yet, in the mind of people like crr6, Glenn Beck is responsible for vandalism and violence against liberals? *facepalm*

It’s easy, though, when you paint any disagreement with your political point of view as “hatred” “racism” etc….

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 5:13 PM

The liberals got together and wished for the death of Bush. The conservatives got together and engaged in peaceful protests against spending, taxes, and healthcare. Yet, in the mind of people like crr6, Glenn Beck is responsible for vandalism and violence against liberals? *facepalm*

It’s easy, though, when you paint any disagreement with your political point of view as “hatred” “racism” etc….

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 5:13 PM

you’re right. I believe the left projects this violent framework onto their political enemies is because that’s the same thing they do themselves. Hence, if they are prone to violent homicidal tendences then of course their political opposites surely must engage in the same tactics.

ted c on January 17, 2011 at 5:20 PM

I would really like to see you produce the kind of hateful posters, including death threats and beheadings, directed at Obama that the leftists directed against Bush at protest after protest. The hate directed at Bush was definitely unprecedented. You can just sit on your pedestal of denial though.
JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Just a helpful reminder of what JannyMae is referring to:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816

I’ve been searching diligently – and I can’t find that lovely rhetoric – so prevalent 2001-2008 – from the Tea Party.

Oopsdaisy on January 17, 2011 at 5:24 PM

How does the left apologize? Ridicule.

Dying gasps from irrelevant revolutionaries.

Inanemergencydial on January 17, 2011 at 5:26 PM

You can always tell when the NYT has determined they have reached maximum propaganda effect with their lies. They get caught, the say oops, and move back to the planning room for their next professional lie.

Don L on January 17, 2011 at 5:28 PM

If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?
crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

…have you watched his show?
crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Have you? I sincerely doubt you’d even mention Beck’s name if you had. Beck has been calling for nonviolence for at least a couple of years now. The guy preaches open discourse and nonviolence … you should watch.
darwin on January 17, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Guess there is no reason to post the below – since crr6 watches Beck – but just in case he was prevaricating:

Pledge of Nonviolence

Monday, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM EST

Over four decades ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. led the Civil Rights Movement with a philosophy and pledge of nonviolence. In the wake of the tragedy in Arizona, Glenn put forth a similar call for nonviolence. Read both below and see the similarities:

First, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Pledge of Nonviolence

Pledge of Nonviolence
1. As you prepare to march meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus
2. Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation – not victory.
3. Walk and talk in the manner of love; for God is love.
4. Pray daily to be used by God that all men and women might be free.
5. Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free.
6. Observe with friend and foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7. Perform regular service for others and the world.
8. Refrain from violence of fist, tongue and heart.
9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10. Follow the directions of the movement leaders and of the captains on demonstrations.

And here is Glenn Beck’s:

Pledge of Nonviolence

I challenge all Americans, left or right, regardless if you’re a politician, pundit, painter, priest, parishioner, poet or porn star to agree with all of the following.

1. I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.
2. I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country.
3. I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be.
4. I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system.
5. I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system – regardless of their underlying ideology – whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven.
6. I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen.
7. I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.

I will stand with anyone willing to sign that pledge. Today I make a personal choice. I urge leaders of both sides and all walks of life to join me as all Americans joined hands on 9.12.2001.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/01/17/pledge-of-nonviolence/

Oopsdaisy on January 17, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Mom’s genes?

profitsbeard on January 17, 2011 at 5:35 PM

BruthaMan, don’t forget all the Bush hatred. Gallows, beheadings, “kill Bush,” etc. We’ve probably all seen Malkin’s anthology of that by now.

JannyMae on January 17, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Absolutely, JannyMae and a great point.

The left is the first to call for death on Bush, Cheney, Palin and any other that happens to irk them on any given day.

But let a “death penalty” sentence be carried through, that is posted on WAPO, and the comments are all in support of the guy that murdered a family, raped their daughter(s) and burned down the house. I witnessed this first hand (the postings) and it really made me wonder what mental defect the liberal mind has, and if any pharmaceutical company is working for a cure, and should I be investing in them.

The left is the first to call for death to a political ally, and yet invokes sympathy for terrorists and other murderers when it comes time to pay the price.

They have no problem murdering innocent babies for convenience (abortion), but want to spare the man/woman that has violently murdered others.

It baffles science to try and find any sort of rational logic for that line of reasoning.

BruthaMan on January 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM

That should be “political enemy” not “ally”

BruthaMan on January 17, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Boy, you could have fooled me.

I thought the NYT was the essence of journalistic restraint.

BARF!

Stepan on January 17, 2011 at 5:44 PM

The New York Times.

All the News That’s Fit to Wrap Fish.

Gray Lady Dowwwn

FlatFoot on January 17, 2011 at 5:48 PM

The New York Times.

All the News That’s Fit to Wrap Fish.

Gray Lady Dowwwn

FlatFoot on January 17, 2011 at 5:48 PM

No, it’s not really good for that either. Since the environmentalists made newspapers start using soybean-based ink a while back that comes off on your fingers, the paper is even worthless for wrapping.

slickwillie2001 on January 17, 2011 at 5:55 PM

They get caught, the say oops, and move back to the planning room for their next professional lie.

Don L on January 17, 2011 at 5:28 PM
IIRC, the standard “oops” from the NYT and their ilk is “we’re not biased, we’re just incompetent!”

malclave on January 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM

January 17, 2011
SPJ eliminates Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/17/spj-eliminates-helen-thomas-lifetime-achievement-award/#ixzz1BKw2fSn5

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Inanemergencydial on January 17, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Once the print medium in particular “frame their narrative,” it rarely revisits to correct or edit faulty assumptions. Other news outlets use the “official” AP or NYT version, and the “history” of the event is fixed in stone.

onlineanalyst on January 17, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Good post, Ed. Brisbane is the first to try and crawl out from under the calumny.

And, as I read it, he blamed BOTH errors — the factual error and the context error — on timing.

What I found most revealing was that the topic he really needed to focus on — the erroneous framing context — did not show up until the eleventh paragraph of his column. By that time, almost all readers who may have been trying to follow his explication of “how we made the factual error” were checking their watches and reaching for the No-Doz, for crying out loud!

Has anyone ever seen a ten paragraph “correction” for a misstatement of fact published in a newspaper?

Most factual corrections can be accomplished in twenty or so words! And they hide them! But he used his lengthy fact-error explanation to bury the faulty context discussion!

Trochilus on January 17, 2011 at 6:28 PM

A bit off topic, but the day of the shooting NPR was being quoted by every news source I heard. NPR. They got it wrong and then they slinked away.

Was this tragedy some sort of coming out party for NPR to prove its worth as a (Soros funded) news source? What was the deal with that?

Fallon on January 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Yep, things like that. And as I’m sure you know, there were many more acts against Democratic congressmen than Republicans.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM

And you know that these acts of vandalism against Democrat congressmen was not done by the far left wing of said party how? The far left in groups or as individuals has historically been implicated in acting out whether through anarchic protests, foul-mouthed epithets, acts of vandalism, etc.

onlineanalyst on January 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Ok, so why do you think death threats against Obama are so high? If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

His policies. Duh

IowaWoman on January 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM

I saw enough printed and televised reports that may have pretended not to blame Republicans, but made sure that the ONLY examples they gave of “incivility” were of Republicans.

malclave on January 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Interesting, wasn’t it? In all the coverage I saw/read about the “hateful” and “poisonous” political atmosphere in Tucson (where I live), I never heard a single word about Giffords’ own contributions to that atmosphere — like the time last year when she characterized Tucson tea partiers as “racists” for wanting better border security, or the deliberately misleading t.v. and print ads she ran against Republican Jesse Kelly in her 2010 campaign (Kelly wants to take away all your Medicare and Social Security, seniors! Kelly wants to deny you an education and make sure you can never again get a student loan, students!).

Now I certainly understand that people didn’t want to criticize my congresswoman in the hours and days after she was grievously injured by a lunatic and was fighting for her very survival. But the media’s insistence on depicting Giffords as some sort of saintly victim of a completely one-sided hostile “right-wing rhetoric” was ludicrously inaccurate and unfair.

AZCoyote on January 17, 2011 at 7:13 PM

The climate of derangement began when the Gore supporters railed against the outcome of the 2000 election. The vitriol from the Left has escalated ever since, and it has done so with the assistance of the mainstream media megaphone whose members self-identify with the left.

onlineanalyst on January 17, 2011 at 7:14 PM

And after the shooting the sheriff called his state the capital of hatred and bigotry.”

I’ll bet next election Sheriff Dupnik sees his hatred and contempt of Arizona more times than he can count.

RJL on January 17, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Sorry, crr6 – as usual, you’re full of crap and BS:

“The mass shooting at Fort Hood by an Army doctor with an Islamic background has raised new anxiety about terrorism and threats to government personnel and installations. But the people assigned to protect President Barack Obama say that in recent months, the number of threats against him has decreased significantly. In a book about the U.S. Secret Service published earlier this year, author Ronald Kessler reported that after Obama took office, threats against the president rose by 400 percent from a rate of around 3,000 per year during the tenure of George W. Bush. According to one widely circulated elaboration on Kessler’s reporting published in August by London’s Daily Telegraph, this means that Obama has been facing 30 death threats each day. In March, Secret Service chief Mark Sullivan told a House Appropriations subcommittee that threats to individuals protected by the Secret Service “remain at high levels.”

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told NEWSWEEK that those figures are now out of date. According to Donovan, there were “substantial spikes” in the rate of threats the service received against Obama before and after last year’s presidential election, and then again before and after Obama’s inauguration last January. Over succeeding months, however, the rate of threats has dropped substantially, Donovan said so substantially that while the average number of threats received is running at about the same level as it did during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, on some recent days the rate of threats received against Obama has actually been lower than the rate during the reigns of Clinton and W.

Midas on January 17, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Midas on January 17, 2011 at 7:15 PM

He ran off to look for a bigger shovel.

slickwillie2001 on January 17, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Yep, things like that. And as I’m sure you know, there were many more acts against Democratic congressmen than Republicans.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Untrue. as always, dishonese crr6. How’s your 5th year of
“law school” treating you?

It seems you had a vacation last week from your Soros funded job of trolling conservative websites.

How do you live knowing that you must always lie about everything to try and push your ideology? yeah, the times did not imply that conservatives were to blame for the shootings. You are either completely dishones or an idiot. I think the former, based on how almost every one of your comments contains a falsehood. Your ideology is based on lies, every time you comment you lie. It is sad.

Monkeytoe on January 17, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Yep, things like that. And as I’m sure you know, there were many more acts against Democratic congressmen than Republicans.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Stats and links please, or stfu. Thx.

Midas on January 17, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Ok, so why do you think death threats against Obama are so high? If the apocalyptic rhetoric from Beck et al. isn’t to blame, what is?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Debunked strawman, move on. Thx.

Midas on January 17, 2011 at 7:21 PM

The new narrative: No widespread blame of the right for Arizona shooting

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/17/936949/-NYT:-No-widespread-blame-of-the-right-for-Arizona-shooting

Moesart on January 17, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Crr6 – do you ever wonder why you and your fellow leftists must always lie to push the left agenda? Doesn’t that ever bother you? Don’t you ever think that if your ideology is so great and right, why must it always be pushed on lies? Why must democrats always pretend to be “moderate” to get elected and then lie about all the policies they push. Why must you always lie on this site?

For someone as self-proclaimed brilliant as you are, you must realize that everything you believe is a lie.

Monkeytoe on January 17, 2011 at 7:22 PM

How about some apologies, Pinch?

SuperCool on January 17, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3