Before banning 'crosshairs,' CNN used it to refer to Palin, Bachmann


#1

Before banning ‘crosshairs,’ CNN used it to refer to Palin, Bachmann
By: Byron York 01/19/11 8:08 AM
Washington Examiner

Now, King says, CNN is “trying to get away” from such terms, suggesting that in the wake of the Tucson shootings, such language should no longer be part of the public conversation. But if Palin is to blame for using crosshairs in her much-discussed map, then CNN, by its own use of the allegedly inflammatory term “crosshairs,” might also share some blame for creating the atmosphere that led to the violence in Arizona. A look at transcripts of CNN programs in the month leading up to the shootings shows that the network was filled with references to “crosshairs” – and once even used the term to suggest the targeting of Palin herself. Some examples:

"Palin’s moose-hunting episode on her reality show … and now, she’s square in the crosshairs …

"Companies like MasterCard are in the crosshairs …

On September 14, Mark Preston, CNN’s senior political editor, referred to another controversial politician, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, as being “in the crosshairs.” “Michelle Bachmann is raising lots of money, raising her national profile,” Preston said on September 14. “She is in the crosshairs of Democrats as well.”

:rofl: Putting CNN’s civility shtick in perspective! :rofl:


#2

Doesn’t surprise me in the least. Liberals consistantly do things of this nature, and then cry when the right does it.


#3

The left likes to beat up on people and then complains if someone fights back then it is “unfair”


#4

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t CNN make this announcement on CrossFIRE?
Maroons. :rolleyes:


#5

When Sarah or Bachmann get shot by someone, then we can talk about blame.

The REAL outrage here is that a specific person that had crosshairs on them got shot.

If I were a high profile personality and I put a flyer out to my followers with Palin’s face covered with a gun sight, then she was shot soon after, I would feel a little bad. Even if it were a crazy gunman who may have never seen the flyer. I may even apologize.

Call it putting 2 and 2 together.


#6

Still waiting for those “Right Wingers” calling for violence I asked for in the other thread Centered.

There’s a bullseye over my State! Should I worry?!


#7

I wouldn’t. Figurative speaking is also, freedom of speech. Any loon who took that literally, needs to be locked away, anyway. People kill because a song suggested it. People kill because avideogame suggested it.
Obama said he was going to War with conservatives. The gloves will come off, hand to hand combat, etc. No one is blaming him for violence against conservatives. Everyone understands his intended meaning.
Sarah deserves the same consideration. PDS has people grasping at straws to stop her.


#8

The REAL outrage here is that a specific person that had crosshairs on them got shot.

If I were a high profile personality and I put a flyer out to my followers with Palin’s face covered with a gun sight, then she was shot soon after, I would feel a little bad. Even if it were a crazy gunman who may have never seen the flyer. I may even apologize.

Call it putting 2 and 2 together.
Centered, there’s a fundamental problem with your “math”. You can see it here in an article in the WashPost. It has the graphic with the “infamous” crosshairs - 20 crosshairs, in fact - but there’s a problem. The crosshairs are not on Rep. Giffords or any other person. The crosshairs are on a map, specifically (as the text accompanying the graphic indicates) the crosshairs designate Congressional Districts. Not people in a group or individual persons.

So this statement you posted, “… a specific person that had crosshairs on them got shot …” is contradicted by the actual graphic. And your attempt at hypothetical moral equivalency, “If I were a high profile personality and I put a flyer out to my followers with Palin’s face covered with a gun sight …,” is similarly invalidated by reality.

But, since you bring up targeting or other proposed violence against former Gov. Palin, this blog post documents:

  • A drawing depicting punching out one of Sarah Palin’s teeth;

  • A Photo-shopped “picture” of a man holding a rifle to Sarah Palin’s head;

  • A bumpersticker with the words, “Abort Sarah Palin”;

  • A video of Madonna saying she would kick Sarah Palin’s …;

  • A video concerning Sarah Bernhard - an alleged comedian - fantasizing about Sarah Palin being gang-raped.

Or maybe you could Google “Palin & MILF” - there’s a good reason I won’t be explaining that acronym. Very amusing. Or maybe you could check out this article commenting on Guy Cimbalo’s Playboy article about his rape fantasies targeting, among other conservative women, Sarah Palin.

Want to try that moral equivalency argument @#$% again Centered? Or can you acknowledge the truth that your moral outrage - feigned or real - is diametrically misdirected?


#9

What? It’s been over a week, and no comment from Centered1? No evidence supporting Centered1’s claim “… a specific person that had crosshairs on them got shot …”? No attempt to justify this straw dog: “If I were a high profile personality and I put a flyer out to my followers with Palin’s face covered with a gun sight, then she was shot soon after, I would feel a little bad. Even if it were a crazy gunman who may have never seen the flyer. I may even apologize.”?

Why am I not surprised that Centered1 casually moved on when this slander was called out?!


#10

And some wonder why I call centered a democrat posing as a republican


#11

Centered, your “logic” makes my head hurt…you sound word for word, like a Northern Liberal Democrat.