MSNBC's Keith Olbermann gave a blistering and vitriolic diatribe about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on her website, seemingly suggesting that she's some kind of co-conspirator in the shooting. They also focused on the verbiage she uses, like "reload," to insinuate her violent nature towards political opposition.
Olberman's a jackass, obviously.
What gave this traction was of course that Giffords had expressed concern about the crosshairs image before the shooting. Presumably this is what Palin meant when she referred to "seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults", or rather presumably this is what she
would have meant if she'd spent five seconds thinking about what she was saying.
And yes, the rhetoric
is violent. Does it have to be?
She's appealing to her demographic, which is not mentally disturbed, homicidal maniacs.
I'll grant you that most of them aren't homicidal ...
To the extent that she somehow coerced an insane man to commit murder is terribly asinine, and I find a bigger correlation between the media's lackluster ratings and their penchant to politicize anything. A cheap and lowly ploy, really.
Palin isn't above scoring a few cheap points herself.
Apparently if the media try to draw any connection between violent rhetoric and acts of violence, they will "incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn", presumably using their powerz of media magic.
In the same speech she denounces "finger-pointing".
The only reason I don't call her a hypocrite is that to truly achieve that distinction would require a degree of self-awareness which I doubt that she possesses.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.