After the mass slaughter in Tucson last week democrats and the liberal media immediately plotted to blame the shootings on the tea party and Sarah Palin.

But now we know…
The Tucson killer was an anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, left-wing, pro-Marx, antiflag, “quite liberal” lunatic who hated Bush. He had been targeting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since 2007.
No wonder Obama called off the dogs at his Wednesday pep rally.

Today the Old Gray Lady apologized for blaming conservatives for the mass slaughter in Arizona… sort of.
The New York Times reported:

…The Times’s day-one coverage in some of its Sunday print editions included a strong focus on the political climate in Arizona and the nation. For some readers — and I share this view to an extent — placing the violence in the broader political context was problematic.

C. Wenk, a reader in Alexandria, Va., criticized “an egregious rush to judgment in the Times coverage of the Arizona shooting, specifically aimed at linking the shooting to various conservative or Republican political rhetoric.”

A second reader, Kevin O’Donnell of Greenbrae, Calif., saw it as a case of The Times jumping too quickly: “I understand the larger point about coarse speech raising the potential for violence. By offering that debate within hours of events, doesn’t The Times risk starting at the conclusion end of the argument?”

The Times had a lot of company, as news organizations, commentators and political figures shouldered into an unruly scrum battling over whether the political environment was to blame. Meanwhile, opportunities were missed to pick up on evidence — quite apparent as early as that first day — that Jared Lee Loughner, who is charged with the shootings, had a mental disorder and might not have been motivated by politics at all.

“If I were a reporter on this story, my very first call would have been to a mental health professional willing to consider the nature of Mr. Loughner’s illness,” Max Etchemendy of East Palo Alto, Calif., wrote. “The ‘political’ angle has been beaten to death, and ‘medical’ angle has been ignored completely.”

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.

 

 

Disable Refresh for 30 Days

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled for your setting to be saved.

1 2 3 4

`
  1. 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.”
    ====================================================
    No mention of the Republican Federal Judge that was gunned down?

    Oh, the Sheriff is to blame, not the NYT?

    The Blame Game continues, in the guise of an apology. It was the fault of the Republicans and the Sheriff, nothing to do with the NYT……typical Marxist spin.

  2. Doesn’t sound like much of an apology to me. I see lots of “some readers felt” but very little “mea culpa.”

    Reporting the news is NOT story telling. News reports are supposed to contain facts, not fiction. There should be no need to “frame” a story. There is not a single thing wrong with saying “we don’t know what motivated the shooter”. Anything further is propaganda. It is no wonder the “news” agencies don’t seem to understand why they lose viewership and influence by the hour.

  3. Looks like they are taking a lot of heat, and deservedly so. If there were any people prior to this shooting who didn’t already know that all of the big media outlets are rabidly partisan, they surely know it now. This recent spectacle was despicable.

  4. Must be bad if they said sorry.

  5. “To be fair, there were some good reasons to steer the coverage initially in this direction. ”

    To be fair??!!?? C’mon. If “fairness” had ANYTHING to do with it, there would have been NO “steerage” of the story in ANY direction. The paper would have reported the facts as they became known – and facts have no agenda.

    This newspaper makes the fish you wrap in it gag.

  6. What inmitigated crap!!! The New York Times, like so many in the MSM and elsewhere on the Left made a vile, false accusation against Gov. Palin, the Tea Party, and Conservatives/Republicans in the same irresponsible sensational fashion as they did against Richard Jewel and the three Duke Lacrosse players and what does the NYT chalk it up to?

    1.) Irrational exuberance e.g the ‘Hey folks, we just got caught up in all of the excitement to accuse people of murder instead of examining the facts.’ excuse.

    2.) Mob psychology e.g the ‘Well, everybody else was doing it too’ excuse.

    At this point, not only do I think the NYT/MSM/Left are ethically incapable of being and adult by admitting a mistake, I believe they are pathologically incapable of doing so. What disgusting people.

  7. The New York Times – Advertising handbags for the rich; writing editorials for the poor.

    In a city where they actually think David Letterman is funny, who can be surprised by what they do?

  8. Apology? You’re being generous characterizing that as an apology. They can’t go bankrupt fast enough.

  9. I agree with Theresa, this is nothing more than a lame attempt to justify poor behavior and lack of judgement. This is in no way an apology. The NYT has lost a lot of cred with this blame game. They appear much more a grocery store tabloid than a respected news organization.

  10. Ummmm……..apology?! What apology?! Sounds more like an excuse as to why news organizations MUST make such errors (“we weren’t the only ones”). After all, the self-inflicted “24/7 news cycle” is FORCING this type of error, they pathetically claim. Except, of course, when it is a known liberal perp like, say……Dem advisor to Congresswoman Giffords Mr. Eric Fuller. (And, yes – I read the entire NYT op-ed to be sure there was no apology before I commented.)

    Excuses, no apology. The NYT continues with its business as usual, with a little self-righteous “gee, everybody makes mistakes” excuse. Like what they did is not criminally libelous. Claiming “no malice aforethought”?! Sounds like a preemptive attempt for a legal defense against any future law suits, to me. Pathetic.

  11. Just like I said on day one: if these people can’t blame the right-wing for something like this, then it must be “neither”. Nevermind “Zeitgeist”, a lefty Anti-Christian, anti-Jew moonbat fantasy extravaganza. Nevermind the murderer’s hatred for G. W. Bush, a typical lefty position. Nevermind all the other evidences that he was motivated by a leftist political bent, including his alleged view of Rep. Giffords’ as a “Fake”, as in “too far right to be a true Democrat.” Including his love of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.

    If they can’t blame righty, then it’s nothing at all, and damn the evidence. They did the same with the KY Census worker. They did the same with Joe Stack. To these Journo-list a&&holes, there IS no left-wing. Just “normal” and “far right”, or “just insane, no prodding from either side.” Even though the evidence is overwhelming.

    Besides, the blood libel has been done. As I said earlier, no amount of correction and mea culpa will erase what they have done in the first week. We’ll see more violence from the left against the right this year, as a direct result of what they have done, than the last three years put together.

    Thanks, State-run Media. Goebbels would be proud.

  12. “Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,”

    Ah, yes. I knew the old “we had to move fast” canard would be trotted out.

    And you gotta love the pseudo-technical term “automatic framing protocols”. How’s about you just say “bias” and get it over with, OK?

  13. “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.”
    …………

    What the hell is THAT? Lazy-assed hyper-partisan hacks are GENETICALLY predispositioned by CAREER choice to report their own stereotypes as “news”?

    We don’t have to go back “generations” to find out where the NYT got it’s “Automatic Framing Protocol” for Arizona.
    Obama made it up to justify a Democrat-led BOYCOTT to PUNISH Arizona for the audacity of SB1070.

  14. Somebody send the NYT editorial staff this link:

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/01/the-face-of-hate.html

    It includes all the photos they intentionally covered up in the past 10 years while cherrypicking for the relatively few “sane” pics from the weekly Anti-War and Anti-Bush and anti-Palin and anti-America protests.

  15. So Sarah Palin got a special we’re sorry memo? I didn’t think so.

  16. “The Times had a lot of company, as news organizations, commentators and political figures shouldered into an unruly scrum battling over whether the political environment was to blame.”

    What difference does it make if you had company? Take responsibility for your own scurrilous conduct. Saying you had company does not make what you did any less reprehensible, all it does is show that all lot of the media has the same low standards.

    Weasels.

  17. …The Times’s day-one coverage in some of its Sunday print editions included a strong focus on the political climate in Arizona and the nation. For some readers — and I share this view to an extent — placing the violence in the broader political context was problematic.

    Sounds a little evasive to me.

    How about a clear, “We screwed up”?

  18. The New York Times can go to hell.

    I couldn’t care less what they had to say then. I certainly don’t care what they have to say now.



1 2 3 4


`

© Copyright 2014, TheGatewayPundit.com. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions