As the facts have come out, that Enright is far from a right-wing zealot, and actually works for an “Interfaith” group which supports the Cordoba Mosque, the left-wing blogosphere is backtracking. Enright was extremely drunk at the time of the incident (no excuse, but a fact), and a crime appears to have been committed. That is all (and enough), and fortunately there do not appear to be serious injuries.
The Anti-Muslim Cabbie Stabber joins the others in the rogues gallery of criminals who disappointed the left-wing blogosphere by failing to fit the eliminationist narrative.
This reminds me of Tom Wolfe’s aphorism that fascism is always on the rise in America, but somehow always seems to land in Europe. All of these accusations against the “right” (i.e., anyone who believes in freedom, apparently) of a tendency to violence are (like the accusations of “lying,” “racism,” “hate,” etc.) simply psychological projection by the left, and a tactic to distract from the things that they actually do.
[Update a while later]
Ed Schultz, arsonist. As Glenn asks, what is it with these left-wing nut jobs and violence?
It’s still Bush’s fault because he got PTSD in Afghanistan! q.v. “fake but accurate” /sarc
Someone help me out here…why do so many in the media vigorously push stories that quickly prove untrue after fairly basic investigation? I use the word “stories” rather loosely, as it seems to me that a lot of these items are opinion pieces, even though they rarely are labeled as such.
Is it desperation to preserve or promote their ideology? Is it that the ease of using the Internet to broadcast an opinion enables folks to bypass a formal education in journalism? Is it that our society has crossed some kind of line after decades of social tinkering and folks now think primarily in terms of victimhood and placing blame? (and that a well crafted false accusation trumps the truth)
At the same time I can hardly avert my eyes from the wild west atmosphere of the internet
@Jiminator-
I think they do so because most folks read the initial report and assume it is true. It takes more work to dig and find the actual story, usually reported days later and further back in the paper. The point isn’t being right, it is being first and getting out their particular agenda. The rest (meaning the truth) is pretty much meaningless.
The Legal Insurrection commenters made a good point. If this guy had been able to escape after the assault, we would have never known it was a manufactured incident (at least from the assaulter’s point of view).
Someone help me out here…why do so many in the media vigorously push stories that quickly prove untrue after fairly basic investigation?
I think the reason is that so many of them are lazy and stupid. If the “news” fits their views, they’ll run with it. Actually finding out the facts first is work and the results may be unwelcome. Better to run with the lie and hope it sticks than dig for the truth. “Fake but accurate” applies to more than just CBS News.
You see, after having had our consciensous’ raised by how Ms. Sherrod’s comments were misreported by the Right Wing with an Agenda, it will become apparent that Mr. Enright’s alleged attack was only half of the story.
We will find that Mr. Enright was acting out a “straw man” argument regarding hate against immigrant New York cab drivers, and that the unreported other half of the story is about how he administered emergency first aid, paid for the man’s medical treatment, established a scholarship fund for his children, and got the man a better job than the dangerous one of cab driving that our exploited immigrants end up taking.