Thursday, August 16, 2012


"This type of violence has no place in our society"
-President Obama

Yesterday a man entered the Family Research Council with a bag of Chick-Fil-A food and a pistol and shot a security guard. The guard fired back, disarming and capturing the would-be killer. This got very little news coverage.

Which is fine with me. It isn't a very big story; nobody died, he was caught right away exactly as he should have been, and an armed man stopped an armed villain from hurting anyone else. That's how its supposed to work.

Yes, it was a left wing nut determined to make people pay for holding the wrong political positions (like the guy who attacked the Discovery Channel headquarters), and yes there are interesting aspects, like how after shooting the security guard he begged not to be shot back because he had a problem with FRC's politics, not the guard. But it isn't a huge story.

This is how something like this should be handled, although the news reports conspicuously have avoided mentioning the guy's stated intent on entering the building with a gun. The problem comes when the news covers other similar stories to a greater degree because it helps an agenda. For example if a Tea Party Movement member busted into CAIR and shot someone, they'd be blaring how this is proof the Tea Party is violent and hateful, that "Islamophobia" is sweeping America, and how we need gun control.

The Family Research Council is one of those places which tries to help homosexuals fight their urges and avoid homosexual activity. For weeks now we've been told by the left that this organization is a "hate group" and the Southern Poverty and Law Center calls it one. This rhetoric has been very loud, sustained, and charged and you can imagine with a few small changes to detail how these comments would be depicted as what caused this man to go on a shooting rampage.

As in how the economy is portrayed under President Obama, I have no significant problem with the level of coverage involved. Its an example of how things should be done, although they cannot resist injecting bias with words like "unexpected" to try to make it look like a terrible economy is somehow inconceivable under a Democrat. Covering the economy more would actually cause damage to it, making matters worse.

The problem is that agenda and politics -- the 'narrative -- is controlling how some stories are covered. If Mitt Romney becomes president as I expect, then you will see exactly what I mean by this. Suddenly the "unexpected" lack of growth or the level of unemployment will get hammered by the media, with lines of people at job interviews, shanty towns, and soup kitchens getting lots of loving footage. Interviews with people suffering from the economy will replace "funemployment" stories. "Malaise" and "Depression" will become spoken, even shouted out loud instead of whispered.

And that's where I have my complaint. It isn't that some stories aren't covered enough for my liking. Its that they are covered differently out of a transparent political agenda.

No comments: