Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

The Hypocrisy Of James Fallows

66 Comments

Thoughts, over at The American Spectator:

So let me get this straight. Even a week after Tucson, after it was absolutely clear that Palin and the right had nothing whatsoever to do with the Giffords shooting, Fallows was still saying that the very “purpose” of journalists is to connect dots and “see if there’s a pattern there,” and that “it is legitimate in our current climate to ask” if the rhetoric on the right had something to do with the shooting. But now that Rubin, VERY shortly after the Norway tragedy, doesn’t just connect nearly invisible dots but actually cites stories quoting jidahists themselves as claiming jihadist “credit” for the terrorism, Fallows says it suddenly is not only a horrible sin for Rubin to take the jihadists’ words themselves for real — these aren’t mere dots, they are what’s known as solid circumstantial evidence — but that is is a mistake bad enough that her employer should apologize to the world.

Maybe it’s not hypocrisy so much as the usual grotesque double standard among the media in the service of a leftist ideology.

[Update a few minutes later]

Related thoughts from Jim Treacher:

When something gets blown up, we’re not supposed to even suspect the terrorist is Muslim? It’s a bit late for that, isn’t it? Are you complaining to Reuters and the NYT and all those other right-wing outlets that suspected Muslim involvement? Or are you somehow confused about what the word “suspect” means? Shouldn’t you save some of your spiteful glee for anybody out there who’s still asserting that this crime was motivated by Islam, despite the evidence to the contrary?

If it’s some sort of victory to you that this freak is a Christian and a right-winger, go ahead and revel in it. As Neal Boortz pointed out: “Muslim zealots kill, Muslims celebrate and conservative Christians are angry. Christian zealots kill, liberals gloat. Odd.” Not as odd as it used to be, unfortunately.

Meanwhile, close to 100 people were murdered. I’m not going to whine that the murderer doesn’t represent all Christians, that he doesn’t speak for all right-wingers. Of course he doesn’t, just as Muslim terrorists don’t speak for all Muslims. Only the dumbest, most jaded lefty creeps are saying otherwise, and bickering about it isn’t going to bring any of those dead people back.

I hate that murdering bastard, and if it were up to me, right now he’d be rotting in Hell after death by waterboarding.

He just can’t stop being politically incorrect.

[Mid-morning update]

Apologize for what?

Anders Behring Breivik, the deranged savage who committed mass-murder in Oslo last Friday, is a severe critic of Islam. His targets, though, were not Muslims. They were his fellow Norwegians and Norway’s government. As Mark Steyn keenly observed this morning, it is patently absurd that Breivik’s attitudes about Muslims have come to dominate coverage of a horrific episode that appears to have little or nothing to do with Muslims — such that those actually killed become, as Mark puts it, “mere bit players in their own murder” while the legacy media shrieks about “Islamophobia.” As Bruce Bawer pointed out in his trenchant post this weekend (at Pajamas), we are now looking at “a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has become profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”

If we are to remain free and secure, that cannot be allowed to happen. And that starts with not apologizing for the entirely rational fear that future terrorist attacks will be fueled by Islamist ideology, just as thousands of past attacks have been. Prominent Muslims are forever making the most unfounded, most offensive pronouncements, and yet they never have to apologize. Right after 9/11, MPAC’s Salam Marayati told a Los Angeles radio interviewer, “If we are going to look at suspects, we should look at groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” Before becoming a top Obama aide and envoy, Rashad Hussain excoriated the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian as a “politically motivated” “travesty of justice” that fit a “common pattern … of politically motivated prosecutions,” by which the U.S. government exaggerates the “threat to American security” — al-Arian later pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge. CAIR has made a career of rushing to the nearest microphone to discredit the investigation of Muslims who are later found guilty of terrorism. The list goes on and on; only the words “I’m sorry, I was wrong” are never uttered — and never demanded.

No,they aren’t. At least not from the likes of James Fallows.

66 thoughts on “The Hypocrisy Of James Fallows”

  1. Except Jennifer Rubin is wrong on two points. First, F-22s and aircraft carriers are not going to stop these kinds of attacks. Second, Jihadists had nothing to do with the attack, and if she’d waited just a few hours she would have known that.

  2. And Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the Arizona shootings but the Left keeps repeating the lie. As for Norway, some Islamist group claimed credit for the attacks. While false claims aren’t uncommon, when someone makes such a claim, we should at least take them at their word until proven false. Palin never claimed any responsibility for the Tuscon shootings, quite the opposite.

    We aren’t going to let the Left get away with their double standards any longer.

  3. “…if she’d waited just a few hours she would have known that.”

    You mean like leftists always wait a few hours before blaming Sarah Palin/The Tea Party/rightwingers for (insert atrocity)? The sad thing is, in the future if another large number of people get murdered like this, we probably will “wait a few hours.” Thus giving the left the discussion field to spin events until the narrative suits them.

    Note: I’ve already started censoring myself, lest some eager PC beaver like Gerrib sics the FBI on me and they descend upon my closet looking for Eastern Star getup. I originally had written “the next time a large number of people are murdered like this.” Then I softened it, even though human history makes it pretty clear that mass murder will happen again and again. But Goddess (there I go again!) forbid I point that out — Chris might think I’m actually planning to do it!

  4. LOL, Gerrib is lecturing someone about jumping to conclusions and being wrong about the motivation of a shooter. The post is titled “The hypocrisy of James Fallows”, but the comments are showing Gerrib’s hypocrisy.

  5. Whatever you do Andrea, if you throw a surprise party and make a map to a friend’s house, don’t use a surveyor’s mark! Gerrib will assume that’s a message that you want the person living their killed.

  7. A lot of vitriol in response, but nobody wants to address the two points I make, namely:

    1) Rubin was wrong about the attacker. If she’d waited a few hours she wouldn’t have been wrong. In any event, if one gets something wrong, one normally admits the error, not double down on it.

    2) Generic “defense spending” will not prevent these sort of attacks. F-22s and aircraft carriers are useless against somebody who is already in the country and building a bomb in their garage. It doesn’t matter if the “somebody is there legally or not – dealing with them (or keeping them out in the first place) is a police function.

  8. In any event, if one gets something wrong, one normally admits the error, not double down on it.

    Not to be vitriolic, but did Fallows follow your “normal” route? Or would you characterize this as “doubling down”:

    That is the purpose of storytellers, it’s the purpose of journalists, to say, OK, we see those four dots, let’s see if there’s a pattern there.

  9. Your first point was given the attention it deserved. Actually more attention than it deserved. You basically are telling us to shut up instead of making completely normal speculation based on 1) knowledge of frequent events in the recent where Muslim terrorists killed large numbers of non-Muslims, 2) actual news reports that some jihadist groups were praising the murders, and 3) those jihadist groups’ praise of the murders. For saying it’s people like Jennifer Rubin (who is a commentator, not a reporter or a policewoman) shouldn’t say anything, and in fact should censor herself, you should be treated like those persons of low intellectual capacity who can’t be let out of the house without a helmet.

    Your second point may be true, but it’s also one of those “what if” arguments that have no end because no one really knows or will ever know what might have happened. However, the dampening effect on free speech of people saying “you shouldn’t talk about that or else we’ll ruin your social, political, and economic life” is quite known. I refuse to participate, and I’m not going to let people like you turn this country into another Norway — not without a fight, anyway. Fortunately, I don’t have a social, political, or economic life worth threatening. So you go right ahead and turn your politically correct goon squad on me.

  10. Stupid slow comment box — that should read “knowledge of frequent events in the recent past where Muslim terrorists killed large numbers of non-Muslims.”

  11. Curt Thomson – well, let’s see. A man who’s mentally ill shoots a Congresswoman. Is it reasonable to ask whether harsh rhetoric set the guy off? Yes.

    Another man, a fan of right-wing websites, kills a bunch of people he identifies as leftists. Is it reasonable to think that F-22s could prevent that, or that Jihadists are to blame? No.

  12. A man who’s mentally ill shoots a Congresswoman. Is it reasonable to ask whether harsh rhetoric set the guy off? Yes.

    No, but even if it were, it went far beyond that.

  13. Andrea Harris – no, I’m suggesting that somebody who gets paid to write for the Washington Post, AKA a “Serious Journalist” has a responsibility to try and get it right.

    My second point remains perfectly valid, unless you think Norway should call in airstrikes on its own people.

    Lastly, how am I calling in a “goon squad?” I’m exercising my free speech, just like you, on a common forum.

  14. 1) You, Gerrib, waited a few days and still blamed Sarah Palin.

    2) Considering Gerrib thinks a surveyor’s hatch mark means a bullseye; then I assume he’s misrepresenting Rubin’s comments. But as for police function, even the responding police said it took them an hour to respond. Forget F-22s, CVNs, and police; armed citizens would protect themselves better againsts nutcases like this.

  15. Rand – so after a right-wing nut kamakazees the IRS and another right-wing nut shoots up the Holocaust Museum, it’s NOT reasonable to ask if the 3rd shooter is a right-wing nut?

  17. I’m suggesting that somebody who gets paid to write for the Washington Post, AKA a “Serious Journalist” has a responsibility to try and get it right.

    Hey Gerrib, anybody who wants credibility at all should take on the responsibility to try and get it right.

    My second point remains perfectly valid, unless you think Norway should call in airstrikes on its own people.

    Your second point is still a strawman proven invalid by the fact Rubin never criticized the Nordic police for failing to call in airstrikes.

  18. for Pete’s sake, this “surveyor hatch” BS wouldn’t fly in 5th grade. A bullseye is a bullseye.

    I don’t know what to make of this. Do you not know what a bullseye is (try visiting your local Target store)? Or are you still trying to suggest Sarah Palin’s map equates to vitriolic speech inciting the shooting in Tucson? It’s been months now, and even the Loughner claims never to seen the map.

  19. a right-wing nut kamakazees the IRS

    So now registered democrat Andrew Stack is a right-wing nut?

  21. Wow! It’s only Monday, and already we have Quote of the Week:

    In any event, if one gets something wrong, one normally admits the error, not double down on it.

    — Chris Gerrib, the man still trying to put Jared Lee Loughner’s gun in Sarah Palin’s hand

  22. I do believe that Gerrib has never, ever looked through a scope of any sort, and thus he doesn’t know that those telescope thingies that land surveyors are always looking through have those cross-hatch markings on the lens to help with locating things. See, that’s why rifle scopes have them too — they’re derived from surveyor scopes. They’re just a thing you look through to locate something. That’s why they use the circle-with-cross scope marks on maps. Maps are used to locate things.

    On the other hand, if you want to see what a “bullseye” looks like, drive past the nearest Target store and look at the sign. That’s a bull’s eye, that circular thing. (No, it’s not really pronounced “tar-zhay.”)

    There, I hope this helps.

  24. well, let’s see. A man who’s mentally ill shoots a Congresswoman. Is it reasonable to ask whether harsh rhetoric set the guy off? Yes.

    And when it turns out harsh rhetoric had nothing to do with it, is it reasonable to admit that fact? No. The message still has value, so double down.

  25. And then there’s this bizarre question from Gerrib:

    so after a right-wing nut kamakazees the IRS and another right-wing nut shoots up the Holocaust Museum, it’s NOT reasonable to ask if the 3rd shooter is a right-wing nut?

    Why yes, it’s totally reasonable to completely skip over the many, many atrocities committed in many countries by Muslim terrorists in favor of making a dotted line from two American crazy white persons (who by the way the news media had sort of forgotten about once the Dem party affiliation of the one and the Truther affiliation of the other came to light) to some crazy white Norwegian person. Yeah, that would have been “reasonable.” :boggle:

  26. Andea Harris – I’ve served in the military, am a member of the NRA and own rifles with scopes on them. The cross-hair image commonly-referred to as a bullseye only makes sense in the context of shooting something, not a “surveyer’s mark.”

    The Holocaust shooter was a neo-Nazi, by definition a right-wing nut, and since when do “leftists” fly planes into an IRS building to protest paying taxes? Aren’t leftists supposed to love taxes? Seems I’ve been told that somewhere… /sarcasm/

    Regarding defense spending – for the 3rd time, how exactly will defense spending prevent something like this from happening?

  29. http://www.google.com/search?&q=airplane+into+irs+building

    I think it was natural to speculate that the attacks in Norway were due to Al Queda or a similar Islamist group, particularly the bombing in Oslo. I think it was narrow minded to be certain it was Islamists, as you were Rand. And I think it is vicious bigotry completely at odds with the American Way to lump all co-religionists together focus on whether the terrorists were Muslims or Lutherans, as if there aren’t evil Lutherans or good Muslims.

  31. Chris, I guess you’d better be careful of the USGS, since they put those circles with the crosses on them all over the place, you know like those metal things buried in the streets, and sidewalks and other locations, usually with other information (targeting information?). And then there’s the topographical maps that have little circles with the crosses in the middle. Must be used for targeting the nukes.

  32. The cross-hair image commonly-referred to as a bullseye only makes sense in the context of shooting something, not a “surveyer’s mark.”

    Can someone translate the above sentence for me? Because it makes no goddamn sense at all. Unless Gerrib is actually somehow agreeing with me, that marks on a map aren’t bullseyes. Well in that case thanks for agreeing that the notorious Sarah Palin map wasn’t a secret message to Jared Loughner telling him to shoot people.

    considering that this shooter posted on US right-wing websites like Gates of Vienna, it’s not much of a stretch at all.

    Only in the sick, evil, free-speech-hating minds of leftists is it “not much of a stretch.” Unless the Norwegian shooter was leaving comments like “I’m gonna kill a bunch of my own people” on the Gates of Vienna site, your statement is nothing but slanderous bile. The next time (and there will be a next time) some Islamic jihadist screaming “Allahu Akbar!” kills a bunch of people do I get to blame all the leftist websites for inciting him if it turns out he left comments on their sites?

    PS: I wonder how many of the lefties gleefully prating about this “rightwing Christian” killer have Che Guevara’s face on a poster or t-shirt or both. Guevara killed lots of his own people, and he’s a hero to the left. Somehow I don’t see too many of us evil, drooling rightwing haters putting Breivik’s face on posters and t-shirts.

  35. as if there aren’t evil Lutherans or good Muslims.

    Bob, when was the last time an evil Lutheran committed an atrocious mass-murder of innocents, and then claimed his actions were directed by those Lutheran beliefs?

    I haven’t read the manifesto, so there’s a possibility he actually did that. So, here’s another one:

    When was the last time an evil Lutheran committed an atrocious mass-murder of innocents, blamed it on his Lutheran beliefs, and there was not universal Lutheran condemnation?

  36. By the way, we should just stop justifying ourselves to the likes of Bob-1 and Chris Gerrib. They are tools of the left. One of the weapons of the left is to get the opposition to doubt itself and entangle us in endless self-questioning of our motives. You could say “I’ve never murdered nor advocated murder to further my beliefs” to these people until you are blue in the face — they will just come back with “are you sure? Because this murderer (did something you did)! So that could mean you are like him!” Don’t let them drag you into this.

  37. By the way, we should just stop justifying ourselves to the likes of Bob-1 and Chris Gerrib.

    Welcome aboard.

    One of the weapons of the left is to get the opposition to doubt itself and entangle us in endless self-questioning of our motives.

    Say hello to post-modern deconstructionist/Critical-Theory KGB Agit-prop. It’s memetic AIDS to soften us up for the Long March through the Culture, Frankfurt School-style.

  38. This nutziod murderer in Norway is nothing near “conservative” (in the sense of modern American politics), he is a nationalist socialist.

    He is not a Christian. He rejects a relationship with Jesus as the key qualification to be one. And his actions are most unchristian.

  39. Rand – I very clearly don’t agree with your politics. Our Norwegian friend very clearly agreed with Gates of Vienna. His whole attack was an attempt to provoke a response against Muslims.

    I’ll ask for the 4th time my original question – how exactly are bigger defense budgets supposed to prevent things like this from happening?

  41. Also, you’re just as stupid as he is if you think anyone is going to attack Muslims because someone claims “it’s their fault I killed a bunch of my own kid!” No, we’re gonna keep appeasing and appeasing Muslims and telling them we’re sooooo sorry some nut killed some people and blamed it on them. We’re gonna keep licking and nuzzling and rubbing up on Muslims until they’re quite disgusted.

    Hey. Hey maybe I’ve got something. Maybe we can freak out Muslims so much by the latest “we like you we really really like you” droolfest I’m sure is being planned for them that they’ll leave of their own accord!

    (PS: by “we” I mean Our Betters In Government. They know best. Love Big Brother.)

  42. Andrea, I have no idea what Gerrib meant about being in the military or NRA as somehow allowing him to call gunsights or crosshairs (found on the rifle) as bullseye’s (found on the target). It’s really a dumb thing for him to write, and he’s been corrected many times. Particularly considering Palin was using a map and not a rifle.

    Somehow, I can imagine this event happened in Gerrib’s past:

    [boot camp – rifle range]
    Sailor, where’s your rifle and why are you holdling that map?

    [boot camp – orienteering course]
    Sailor, where’s your map and why did you bring a rifle?

  43. Hmm…. There seems to be a lot of contentious debate, yet I think compromise is possible between the two sides, once they concede the obvious truth.

    Anders Breivik must’ve seen Sarah Palin’s surveyor’s marks on the web somewhere, believed they were crosshairs, and then realized that the Norwegian Prime minister and all those kids at a political camp had somewhat similar crosshairs on them, a blue cross on a field of red that looks almost exactly like the Norwegian flag.

    Meanwhile, right-wing pundits leaped to the conclusion that the attackers were Muslim because Muslim jihadists were claiming credit, and who else would be attacking people who use a Christian looking cross as a flag? They didn’t realize that it was actually a Sarah Palin surveyor mark/crosshairs marking lily white leftists for death.

  45. You know, some scopes use dots to show what you’re going to hit. Why I’m looking at all yalls posts and I see nothing but periods at the end of each sentence. Periods pointing straight between my eyes ready to blow my brains out at any second. This reckless use of periods is threatening my safety and security so please kindly stop. AH! I just put one at the end of my own sentence. AH! I must have suicidal thoughts or something please help me.

    For now on I say in the interest of saving lives and to help make us all feel safer we just eliminate the period at the end of a sentence — And the letter ‘i’ is straght up demonec with eets menaceng dot. Anyone caught usange a letter “eye” should be wreeten up on hate crymes — And don’t get me started on the exclamaton poent, oh that nasty exclamatuon poent by eet’s very defeneshun is a vereetable bomb wahting to go off/////

  48. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that Palin’s graphic designer intended to advocate violence against Democratic lawmakers (and just putting that in black and white should show how absurd the premise is) — so what? Is Paul McCartney responsible for the murders committed by the Manson family? Unlike Palin, McCartney actually intended to evoke (not to say provoke) the end of civilization. And Manson took him at his word….

    The leftist fallback position is, of course, that even if Palin’s graphic designer (or McCartney) did not intend to provoke these tragic outcomes, they are culpable of negligence for not taking into account the helpless, weak-minded killers in our midst, and should not have created the things they created. This is entirely consistent with the leftist totalitarian impulse: Art must serve the state. Nothing should be created which does not meet with the approval of the state — or its self-designated vanguard. To which we are all entitled to reply, “go screw yourselves” (even if this advice puts at risk the reproductive health of said weak-minded leftists). We fought a revolution and quite a few wars to keep the statists off our backs.

Comments are closed.