That’s the title of Bernie Goldberg’s latest piece blasting the New York Times for the way their editors handled (or not) two tragically similar events which have occurred in 2011. Here’s a big chunk of classic Goldberg:

The other day, a gunman walked into an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada, and opened fire with an AK-47 on helpless patrons who had been eating breakfast. He hit 12 of them, five who were members of the National Guard.  Before he turned the gun on himself, the gunman had killed three patrons and wounded eight more.

This happened just one day after James Hoffa, the head of the Teamsters Union, told a Labor Day Rally in Detroit, “President Obama this is your army! … Everybody here has got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let’s take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.”

The shooting at the IHOP followed by just a few weeks this statement by Congresswoman Maxine Waters to supporters in California:  “The Tea Party can go straight to hell.”  The remark was greeted with cheers from the audience.

Perhaps you saw the editorial in the New York Times following the murder in Nevada.  This is part of it:

“It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Democrats or union members. But it is legitimate to hold Democrats and particularly their most virulent supporters responsible for the shooting at the Nevada IHOP. Many on the left have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing conservatives. They have tried to persuade many Americans that Republicans, especially the more conservative Republicans, are not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.”

Just kidding.

The Times – or any news organization – would have had to be grossly irresponsible and hopelessly ideological — to tie the shootings in Nevada to anything James Hoffa or Maxine Waters said, especially since it turns out the gunman who killed himself was mentally unstable, according to people who knew him.  Besides that, there is not a shred of evidence that he heard Hoffa’s angry rhetoric or the “go to hell” vitriol of Maxine Waters – or for that matter, even knew who they were.

That’s why the New York Times didn’t run the fake editorial you just read. But here’s the real editorial the New York Times ran just days after the mass shootings outside a Tucson, Arizona supermarket last January.

“It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.”

Goldberg goes on to describe the similarities in the mental states of both gunmen and the lack of evidence pointing their actions to anything on the political left or right, adding that if a conservative publication would have attempted to link this most recent shooting to James Hoffa and/or Maxine Waters, “they would be seen as ideological buffoons”. Couldn’t agree more with that last statement.

Unfortunately for liberals, their mouthpieces in the NYT don’t mind playing the role of ideological buffoons, even if they’ll go to their graves denying it.

Here’s Bernie’s concluding paragraph:

Editorial writers, of course, are expected to have a point of view.  But even those who write opinions must be fair in the way they come to their conclusions.   Otherwise, they aren’t journalists so much as they are ideological warriors.  That’s what Rush Limbaugh is on the right, but he doesn’t pretend to be a journalist.  The editorial writers at the New York Times do.

10 Responses

  1. I wanted to get in here before George junks thinks up with his name calling.

    I just want to ask you, Robert, if you think the fact that “the mass shootings outside a Tucson, Arizona supermarket last January” that, oh by the way, included the attempted assassination of a Democratic congresswoman [something that Goldberg doesn’t deem worthy of mention] and Republican Sarah Palin placing gun sights, or as Palin’s aides called them, “surveyor’s marks,” on that congresswoman’s district prior to the shooting had anything at all to do with how these two stories were initially handled?

    Anything at all?

    I gotta hand it to Goldberg for glossing over the obvious. It’s in keeping with Fox’s fine tradition of distortion and misrepresentation to make an ideologically motivated point.

    Okay, George, start the name calling and the smearing….go ahead.


    • Anything at all?

      No I don’t, and it shouldn’t. There’s no evidence whatsoever linking the Giffords shooter to any defined conservative or liberal ideology. In other words, the guy is nuts and Goldberg makes that point painfully obvious. So why did the NYT choose to ignore that and point the finger at conservatives in their editorial? Even if it wasn’t known at the time the editorial was published that the guy was mentally unstable, don’t you think it’s fair and proper journalism to give the benefit of the doubt, whether it’s the NYT, FOX, CNN or MSNBC?

      And where exactly is the ideology being pointed out in Goldberg’s piece? He makes it abundantly clear that any conservative publication which would attempt to place the blame for the shooting on two extremely liberal individuals would be seen as “ideological buffoons”, for the same exact reason he criticized the NYT. To me, that’s fair.

      • I would have to question the political motivations, or at least the common sense, of anyone who would describe the Reagan assassination attempt as a “gunfight outside the Washington Hilton” without mentioning that the President had been shot.

        Likewise, Goldberg’s failure to include the fact that a Democratic congresswoman was shot point blank in the head during the “mass shooting outside a supermarket” conveniently creates a somewhat more believable equivalency to the IHOP shootings that Goldberg’s loyal readers, who are certainly overwhelmingly conservative, are more likely to accept.

        In addition, calling someone a son of a b*tch or telling them to go to hell is a whole lot different, in my opinion, than the gun imagery and verbiage that certain factions of the Right have become so fond of these past 3 years.

        Goldberg’s piece is the typical backing away from the words and the rhetoric that a portion of the Republican Party has opted to use in their politics these days. Only the people who actually think that Palin was using “surveyor’s marks” to “target” Democrats would see otherwise.


        • There’s plenty of evidence of the left’s violent attacks on conservatives for anyone willing to research it and find it. Malkin has done it, I’ve written about it, all with documented links. Kenneth Gladney, a black Tea Party activist, beaten by your precious union thugs, immediately comes to mind — an event, by the way, you’ve never condemned.

          But that’s not what I wanted to say: It’s no longer fun arguing with you, Rick. I think we do it around here for the fun of it because it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. You are that easy to peg. You are one of two people of my acquaintance who are so willfully ignorant when it comes to politics, that nothing on God’s green earth could shake your beliefs, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that totally disputed your belief.

          You are, truly, the perfect liberal/progressive.

          • I knew you wouldn’t be able to able to help yourself even while you proclaim that it’s no longer any fun. So don’t do it, George. Most of us don’t do things that aren’t enjoyable unless we’re some kind of sadist or masochist and, well, let’s not go there.

            I actually welcome the chance to engage in an open forum with you and expose the misinformation that you safely pump out in the safety of your echo chamber at babalu. You constantly bring up Kenneth Gladney as an example of left wing violence. You did it here. SEIU personnel were cleared of any wrong doing by a jury. But you know that. And yet you continue to hold it up as some bona fide proof of liberal violence. It isn’t. And you know that. But yet you continue.

            But that’s not to say that there aren’t leftists who engage in violence. There are. But what Robert’s post is about is not whether or not each side has its violent element. Rather it’s about whether or not each side is held equally responsible.

            It would be interesting to note the reaction by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Big Government, and George Moneo if tomorrow, God forbid, a Republican congressman would be shot point blank in the head while talking to his constituents in a public parking lot. It would even be more interesting if this act had been preceded by Alan Grayson giving a speech extorting everyone to “reload” and Grayson’s PAC putting gunsights on a map that included the shot congressman’s district. I’m sure Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Big Government, and George Moneo would find nothing to comment about and no fingers to point even if the shooter had been determined to be crazy.

            I think the NY Times editorial was appropriate given the climate of the times and the nature of the crime. For Goldberg to expect everyone to try to draw some kind of parallel between these two shootings simply because Tea Party people had been called “sons a b*tches” and told to “go to hell” by a couple liberals is fantastical to say the least.


        • Likewise, Goldberg’s failure to include the fact that a Democratic congresswoman was shot point blank in the head during the “mass shooting outside a supermarket” conveniently creates a somewhat more believable equivalency to the IHOP shootings that Goldberg’s loyal readers, who are certainly overwhelmingly conservative, are more likely to accept.

          I think you’re exhibiting similar bias from the other side, Rick. Putting aside the positions and careers of the people shot in Arizona vs Nevada, the simple fact is that innocent people were shot. That fact trumps anything else, IMO. I don’t agree that the NYT’s knee-jerk and ideologically-driven reaction in their editorial was appropriate considering the climate at the time. If anything, a non-accusatory stance would have been much appropriate in a climate already divided by overheated rhetoric, not a finger-pointing one, and the facts involving the shooter proved the NYT wrong.

          Are we forgetting the Goldberg is advocating that NEITHER side be blamed? I just think that’s a logical, rational and fair way to look at it.

          Imagery and metaphors involving guns, knives, bombs, etc. are thrown around politics all the time. I don’t think they’re always appropriate, of course, but if you’re going to single out one or two conservatives for using that kind of metaphoric language, then you can also say that the president himself is guilty of it (remember the whole “bringing a knife to a gunfight” thing?).

        • You just proved my point.

          SEIU may have been acquitted, but their crime against Gladney is on video. Any comments? No? I thought so.

          And Grayson? You’re bringing up that loonbag? Your twin brother in ad hominem attacks? Please. He accused conservatives of wanting old people dead. Is that balanced discourse? Of course not and you know it.

          You LOVE it when the rhetoric on your side gets going; The problem is you don’t have the guts to take it when it’s hurled right back at you and yours.

          BTW, I’m curious. Do you belong to a union?

  2. I’m sorry, was I paged?

  3. I’m going to break this comment out again as the comments box is starting to narrow too much.

    Well, if we’re not able to agree that a shooting that involves the attempted assassination of a Democratic congresswoman is inherently different than a person walking into an IHOP and shooting people, at least initially as to how it’s commented on, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to discuss why the NY Times wrote, or didn’t write, what they did. It’s just another issue that we disagree on.

    But I want to make sure that George understands that our country’s criminal justice system was set up the way it was because of people like him. Evidence, including the film, was presented in a court of law, witnesses were presented by both sides, and testimony was taken and at the end of it all, a verdict was delivered by a jury. You’re totally entitled to reject their verdict and claim they made a mistake, but SEIU and its reps will forever be absolved of assaulting Gladney, no matter what claims you make to the contrary.

    It’s the way we roll here in the good ole’ US of A.


    • Yes, and thank God for that. But occasionally the OJs and SEIUs of the world escape correct verdicts — and justice.

      All of your excuses, your posturing and your usual apologia for the left will not erase the simple, inescapable fact that Kenneth Gladney by beaten by your union thugs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: