CNN Rick Sanchez 'SLAMS' FOX News's Gun Fear Mongering

[democracy1st]

So, in case you haven't noticed, people have lately been going around killing people, indiscriminately. Is this because Fox News is sending their hypnobeams into America's brainpan through the lunatic ravings of Glenn Beck and the Michele Bachmann-boosting tyranny pillow-talk of Sean Hannity? I don't know! Maybe. That stuff mostly fills me with either humor or pity. Then I make some tacos, drink some Jim Beam, everything's OK again.

But CNN's Rick Sanchez notes the rise of Fox style crazyfaced paranoia and the uptick in gun violence, and feels that there's a connection worth exploring. Which he does by...SCARING THE BEJEEZUS OUT OF EVERYONE! Terrifying music! Scary YouTubes! Breathless, unproveable pronouncements! A cop-killer was "convinced, no doubt because of Fox News...that our rights were being infringed upon. That's according to a friend" of the killer. LOTS OF GREAT SOURCING AND CERTAINTY, THERE! Is there any truth to the notion that Fox is inexorably driving people crazy? It's an "apparent result," Sanchez says. Sounds ironclad!

Ugh. Look, I'd the first to suggest that children shouldn't play with Fox news, but if you're going to make the earnest case that Glenn Beck is literally killing America, you need more than second hand observations of spree-killers and "apparent results." You need, I'd posit, some sort of "evidence." Data points, anecdotal accounts, proof that the suits at Fox News were aware of potential harm and were negligent in allowing a specific danger to be exacerbated. Short of that, if you want to combat the pernicious effect of misinformation you deem dangerous, you got no other choice that to buckle down and do the work of a reporter. Debunk claims, research policies, stack up contrary evidence. And double down on the sobriety and the seriousness.

What Sanchez does here is lead with alarm, accusations, terrifying images, more alarm, melodrama. At about four minutes in, Sanchez finally offers a counterpoint - a statement from Eric Holder from his confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, Sanchez's first attempt at debunkery was well countered. That left Eric Boehlert of Media Matters to "help Sanchez out," but all he did was point out that there's a "media narrative" at work - which is where all of this began. From there, it became an internecine argument over what the media was doing as opposed to what the Obama administration was doing.

The end result, Fox is making people scared of Obama, CNN is making people scared of Fox viewers, and soon we'll all be peeing our pants at the drop of a hat.

Eight minutes, and Sanchez brings one solitary piece of substantive evidence was brought to the table, to support his argument. Better luck next time! Please?





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBIpfAl8cpI









CNN Reports: Gun Control Bills Not Popular With Politicians


Media Monitor Jon comes through with proof that CNN can, in fact, discuss the issue - and present evidence that counters the contention that a plan to curb gun owners is afoot - without resorting to histrionics, accusations, fearmongering, or "meta" media discussions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3AASVEJ_mY

[baldguy]

1. The GOP plays the tune and the gun worshipers dance.

Dance! Dance, gun worshipers! Dance!

[imdjh]

3. All they are really doing is driving up the cost of guns

There is an absolutely adorable deadly weapon that I'd like to purchase, that is totally sold out and back ordered, and selling above MSRP (not to mention WIAW) because of this hysteria.
It's also making gun shop owners arrogant.

[baldguy]

2. oops

[RandomThoughts]

4. I tried to compare Glenn Beck's style or comments to post made during Bush years

The intent was to try and understand if free speech could be blamed for nutty people doing bad things. And if thinking the actions or words of them could be to blame.

Many people advocated concepts of civil disobedience during the Bush years, they felt his illegitimacy and actions made it where people should protest his actions, in that it is sort of like what Glenn Beck does.

However Bush's elections were very dubious, his actions illegal in our nation and under laws of humanity, the evidence of his wrong doings and incompetence were very confirmable.

In contrast President Obama seems to have improved and reinforced rule of law. (However there is an argument that could be made that he could be impeached for not arresting the Bush Administration, however I have not heard The Right make that argument.)

It was possible under Bush rule to make a case of breach of social contract, or right to revolution, it has not been made under the presidency of President Obama.

So without that argument, I think they only make their argument, as said by many, from just being the looser of the election. And in support of tyranny or lack of democracy, they want to change that. Which makes sense from the point of view of a Bush supporter, since he was anti democracy.

So I think resistance to Bush was a valid argument, and they have not made one against President Obama. But more importantly what is the method they speak of.


During Bush years many posted about possible peaceful protest, I remember posting of how bullets don't work, and any violence always hurts the cause it claims to support, many people tried to act in the beliefs of pacifism and non violence. Thinking on the most fervent news comments made on TV, I remember calls for Bush to resign, be ashamed, and apologize to Americans, but not violence or guns.

But they speak of succession, not impeachment, again outside of law, and they also speak of gun ownership as a method to retake America. Things like 'the ones with the guns make the rules' again this is not an anti-violence message.

Because of my posting in the past questioning the legitimacy of Bush President, I really wanted to think on this, and what it comes down to is their choice of method. But again this defines the difference in the sides of the argument. It seems the same application of attack first, don't use diplomacy, and 'they are the enemy', 'might makes right' that Bush used, is the actual same way his followers think, and they carry those ideas into the public square.

To be fair, I am curious, has any of the right wingers consistently explained why violence always hurts society, and how they are against violence. Have they explained what they think people that are buying guns should do with them? Or why they need guns? Have they said who they think those guns will be used to intimidate or shoot?

If there is advocacy for buying guns, and it is not to blame for use of those guns, you would think they should answer those questions.