More Predictable Sensationalism from the Media
We all know the media lives on sensationalism. But the willingness of the media to manufacture the sensational out of nothing is sometimes breathtaking.
Take this article from the LA Times. Here, the headline breathlessly reads “Sikh temple shooting: Gunman had been on investigators’ radar”. The article goes on to begin
Federal investigators had “looked at” Sikh temple gunman Wade Michael Page more than once because of his associations with right-wing extremists and the possibility that he was providing funding to a domestic terrorist group, but law enforcement officials at the time determined there was not enough evidence of a crime to open an investigation, a senior U.S. law enforcement official said.
The implication is obvious: Federal law enforcement knew about the guy and should have been investigating him as a domestic terrorist. If they had, they might have prevented this tragic incident.
However, later in the article a rather key fact comes out.
But the FBI is prohibited under federal law from collecting information on U.S. citizens not suspected of committing a crime. In order to open a domestic terrorism investigation, FBI agents must believe a suspect has threatened violence, has broken federal law and is trying to advance a political or social agenda.
So, the media states that federal law enforcement knew about the guy, thus implying authorities could (and should) have prevented the crime. But they later admit that federal law prohibits federal law enforcement from collecting information on US citizens who aren’t criminal suspects. And the guy, while apparently a racist idiot, hadn’t done enough to warrant suspicion of a crime – and thus an investigation.
Great journalistic work, LA Times. Imply one thing in the lead-in, then undercut your own implications later in the same article. Sheesh.
If the LA Times has a problem with the underlying law that bars federal US law enforcement collection of info on US citizens who aren’t suspects, they need to state that fact. But that is also tantamount to sanctioning a police state.
Gee, ya think that maybe that’s why the LA Times didn’t “go there”?
And if you don’t want to “go there”, LA Times – don’t castigate law enforcement for obeying the law. That’s rank hypocrisy.
Category: Media
No, they want to push the “right-winger racists” bullshit.
Problem is, they seem to forget that Nazis weren’t “right-wingers” in virtually any sense of the word. Nor was the Klan.
The thing is that the media will make sure they put “right-winger” in every single article. If the dude is a “left-winger”, like the guy that took over the Discovery building, they are silent on it.
Twist, if you remember, that Discovery Channel gunman was a right winger in the news until we posted our archived video of him protesting the troops the year before.
I just read an article in the NY Post. The initial officer on the scene, Lt. Murphy, took 9 rounds when he was ambushed by the perp while helping one of the victims. His fellow officers came to his assistance but, he waved them off and told them to get the perp. He is till in critical condition. He is also a former United States Marine. Let’s see if the MSM covers this veteran.
Semper Fi Sir.
The New York Post had this op-ed today:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_ugly_war_myth_gUO4u03NaiSXFfXO86Oi4O
Hondo…sent an email to Jonn about the SPLC being touted as organizational watch lists– wonder if that means the same “under investigation” to the idiots?
PS…you just can’t fix crazy…That is, unless we all have chips implanted and each day file a “Citizen DefendUSA” report with the gov’t- who would then say, “Citizen Defend, you were off the normal route, why?”
Who wants that? Raise your hands, all of you who would ban any weapons because of what crazy people are capable of!!
77 11C20: Podhoretz generally gets things right (though his latest column does have one significant error). His main point that the guy here wasn’t a war vet is correct.
Help me out here fellas. How is that this guy is described as right-wing? I’m not seeing the connection here, but not too many people seem to question it so I’m assuming there is something that I don’t know. I can understand why he would fit the definition of right wing in Europe, where even socialism is right-wing, but not here in America.
I can see Anarchists being considered right wing, but just about every other extremist group, to me, seems as if it would fit on the left.
Can anyone edumacate me on what I’m missing here??