Ft. Hood : 13 Dead, 30 Wounded

Tuscon: 6 Dead 13 Wounded

One was by a muslim. The other by a hallucinogenic loving psycho.

One was at a democrats speaking event. The other was on the countries largest Army base.

If you want to see where the media left bias is, look no further than these two stories. One was swept under the rug the other has political pep rallies and discussion of increased gun control.

Well, in terms of gun control, the two are not comparable, as the Army officer used his side arm I believe while Loughner bought a gun.
I get your point.

But, I'd also say the media got both of them wrong. On the Ft. Hood killing, no one thought it was terrorism at first. Yet, turned out it was.
In this instance, everyone thought it was political, when in reality it was not.

Finally, now the Ft. Hood shooting isn't swept under the rug, it is used as a case study in trying to deradicalize individuals.

ptown_trojans_1;641303 wrote:Well, in terms of gun control, the two are not comparable, as the Army officer used his side arm I believe while Loughner bought a gun.
I get your point.

But, I'd also say the media got both of them wrong. On the Ft. Hood killing, no one thought it was terrorism at first. Yet, turned out it was.
In this instance, everyone thought it was political, when in reality it was not.

Finally, now the Ft. Hood shooting isn't swept under the rug, it is used as a case study in trying to deradicalize individuals.

Both of those points will never be addressed to the extent that they should be.

One of the things I can agree with that has already been stated:

One was a white guy
One was not

ptown_trojans_1;641303 wrote:Well, in terms of gun control, the two are not comparable, as the Army officer used his side arm I believe while Loughner bought a gun.
I get your point.

But, I'd also say the media got both of them wrong. On the Ft. Hood killing, no one thought it was terrorism at first. Yet, turned out it was.
In this instance, everyone thought it was political, when in reality it was not.

Finally, now the Ft. Hood shooting isn't swept under the rug, it is used as a case study in trying to deradicalize individuals.

The media did get them both wrong -- very wrong.

And it was their left wing bias that prompted both mistakes.

They wanted DESPERATELY for the Ft. Hood shooting to just be some nutjob and not related to his Muslim name; so they ignored the obvious until they had it smacked in their faces to the point they couldn't ignore it, any longer.

With the Tucson case, it was just the opposite. They DESPERATELY wanted this to be some right wing nutcase who took his "hate" and "vitriol" to the next level. Even when it has become obvious politics and political rhetoric had NOTHING to do with it, they are STILL injecting that aspect into stories about the case.

Last night, NBC did another hatchet job on the Tea Party and those who protested against ObamaCare by showing ONLY footage of those individuals and events when discussing a need to tamp down political rhetoric.

This isn't about wanting civil discourse; it's about trying to discredit the groups and individuals who fought so diligently and hard against the passage of that monstrous piece of legislation. A byproduct of that is continuing to protect Obama, because that bill is his administration's signature piece.

If they can discredit the folks who led the backlash against it, they believe it will protect Obama's legacy piece of legislation (at least to this point).

Of course, anyone with two brain cells to rub together sees right through all of this, and understands it's just more of the same left wing nonsense we've seen grow exponentially since the Obama campaign for president.

They (the MSM) truly are all in on this guy.

bases_loaded;641287 wrote:Ft. Hood : 13 Dead, 30 Wounded

Tuscon: 6 Dead 13 Wounded

One was by a muslim. The other by a hallucinogenic loving psycho.

One was at a democrats speaking event. The other was on the countries largest Army base.

If you want to see where the media left bias is, look no further than these two stories. One was swept under the rug the other has political pep rallies and discussion of increased gun control.

You forgot to mention the difference in the manner the POTUS addressed the issue, i.e. the lack of a "shout-out" to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow before discussing the tragedy. I understand he's a Medal of Honor recipient, but really?

Charitably, I'll give BO credit for addressing this tragedy a bit more professionally and Presidentially.

I never noticed until today, but they are both bald. I think we should start profiling bald people. Maybe ugly people too.

Only real manly men are bald. It's all that testosterone at work.

I have attended several Tea Party Rallies with concealed weapon at my side and others also demonstrating their rights.

Has anyone ever been shot at Tea Party Rally?

Belly35;641548 wrote:I have attended several Tea Party Rallies with concealed weapon at my side and others also demonstrating their rights.

Has anyone ever been shot at Tea Party Rally?

No but this guy was a dick head at a Tea Party Rally...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41094534/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

I saw tons and tons of coverage about the Ft.Hood shooter. Were you not watching television after that happened or something?

Seem to me that Fort Hood and Tuscon event weapons where not permitted (by citizen) and in the Fort Hood situation even by the MPs

It would be interesting to find out what other rallies (as examples: Gay, Liberal, Freedom, Million Man, NRA, Democrat and Republic) and the type of violence that occurred during each rally if any and or the level of violence. I think this would be an interesting study.

The question has to be ask: Is there less change of violence if the public rights to bear arms are implemented?

I Wear Pants;641581 wrote:I saw tons and tons of coverage about the Ft.Hood shooter. Were you not watching television after that happened or something?

Did the President use it as a platform to spew some bulls hit ideal society, golden rule shit? Did he have a prime time TV event when the Ft. Hood massacre happened? Did Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh make headlines for 2 days being blamed for causing the shooting?

While it was no doubt covered, it was not covered to the "extent" of the Tuscon shooting and from a numbers stand point it was twice as bad.

It wasn't covered because a terrorist slipped through the cracks because of agendas that the left pushed.

In Tuscon it was a crazy sick individual who was motivated by self. I guess the fact that humans do inhuman things sometimes is too much to fathom, so they do the easy thing, blame the right first. And this is fine because they have dumbed the American people down so much that they elected a man with no leadership skills, so the blame the right stance was good enough for them.

I Wear Pants;641581 wrote:I saw tons and tons of coverage about the Ft.Hood shooter. Were you not watching television after that happened or something?

How long did it take the media to get around to the terrorist angle? They kept stating during broadcasts that people shouldn't jump to the wrong conclusion simply because the shooter was a Muslim, and took every possible angle on their stories EXCEPT possible terrorism until the facts showed there was clearly no doubt about the man's intent. There was an agenda in how the story was reported, just as there was for Tucson.

News media should GO WHERE THE FACTS TAKE THEM and not try to purposefully slant stories one way or another. That's not their place (unless they want to clearly mark what they are saying as commentary). In both instances, most of the MSM did not simply follow the facts; they tried to report the stories from a particular point of view.

To the OP: great thread. You could write a book on the media's coverage of these two events alone. Not only the media's response, but the clowns in Congress who want to see "rhetoric" toned down.

When a Muslim commits terrorist acts against American civilians, then one of the biggest motivations for such individuals is the evil, heinous United States of America. Surely we must have done something to piss them off.

When a nutjob murders people at a political event, it had to have been someone on the right who fueled his hatred. Even if it wasn't someone in particular, it had to be the "climate of hate" that caused it (i.e., the audacity of any idea opposed to liberalism). Surely the American right is to blame.

The narrative is very easy to point out when stuff like this happens, and it's so predictable too.

Maybe the Tuscon shootings got more coverage because they involved a congresswoman?

Writerbuckeye;641677 wrote:They kept stating during broadcasts that people shouldn't jump to the wrong conclusion simply because the shooter was a Muslim, and took every possible angle on their stories EXCEPT possible terrorism until the facts showed there was clearly no doubt about the man's intent.

Writerbuckeye;641677 wrote:News media should GO WHERE THE FACTS TAKE THEM and not try to purposefully slant stories one way or another.

If the news media is supposed to follow the facts, shouldn't they wait until the facts show the man's intent before they try to show that? I won't deny there is a definite left lean for the media, but I don't think you can complain about them waiting for all the facts to come in. I would actually prefer that. There are people on this site who were hoping the Tuscon shooter was a muslim so they could call it terrorism. There's no reason, IMHO, to stir the hate when it might not exist.

Belly35;641607 wrote:Seem to me that Fort Hood and Tuscon event weapons where not permitted (by citizen) and in the Fort Hood situation even by the MPs

It would be interesting to find out what other rallies (as examples: Gay, Liberal, Freedom, Million Man, NRA, Democrat and Republic) and the type of violence that occurred during each rally if any and or the level of violence. I think this would be an interesting study.

The question has to be ask: Is there less change of violence if the public rights to bear arms are implemented?

I don't think there's a really reliable way to do a study like that. But it is an interesting thing to think about.

FatHobbit;641733 wrote:Maybe the Tuscon shootings got more coverage because they involved a congresswoman?




If the news media is supposed to follow the facts, shouldn't they wait until the facts show the man's intent before they try to show that? I won't deny there is a definite left lean for the media, but I don't think you can complain about them waiting for all the facts to come in. I would actually prefer that. There are people on this site who were hoping the Tuscon shooter was a muslim so they could call it terrorism. There's no reason, IMHO, to stir the hate when it might not exist.

Yes. Seems simple, doesn't it? Instead, we got all kinds of SPECULATION that came from their left-leaning beliefs.

And we didn't get any speculation at all from the right leaning media after the Ft. Hood shootings right? Oh wait, that's impossible because there is no right leaning media, every single person on television is a liberal communist scum who hates "real" American values.

I Wear Pants;641777 wrote:And we didn't get any speculation at all from the right leaning media after the Ft. Hood shootings right? Oh wait, that's impossible because there is no right leaning media, every single person on television is a liberal communist scum who hates "real" American values.

Welcome to the party, pal. Nice to see you have finally learned how the media works

I Wear Pants;641777 wrote:And we didn't get any speculation at all from the right leaning media after the Ft. Hood shootings right? Oh wait, that's impossible because there is no right leaning media, every single person on television is a liberal communist scum who hates "real" American values.

As I recall the "right-leaning" media labeled the Ft. Hood shooting as a terrorist act almost immediately and also labeled the Tuscon shootings as an individual act of a single lunatic out of the chute. They got it right. The leftist media of course attempted in vain to spin both unfortunate incidents.

Oh wait, that's impossible because the left leaning media views every unfortunate incident in a fair, balanced, and objective manner.

No they don't, what I'm saying is that anytime the right leaning members of the media do something biased or incorrect or before thinking about you guys all excuse it because "it doesn't even balance out the left leaning bias" or something.

I don't like jumping to conclusions any more than you guys do. You'd see that if you read the several times where I've said that this dude being a Republican (which is unlikely anyways as I don't think he had consistant enough views to identify with any party) had nothing to do with him shooting these people. Him being a crazy asshole did.

Just because Fox and others got the Ft. Hood shooting right doesn't mean they should have jumped to conclusions.
It was unclear until a few days after the event that is was terrorism and not a crazy man. It wasn't until there was the link between Hassan and al-Awlaki and radicalization that one could honestly say it was terrorism.

One thing we all can take away looking at the media is they should just report, and not speculate about motives. They should leave that to the police, then report on that.

ptown_trojans_1;641820 wrote:Just because Fox and others got the Ft. Hood shooting right doesn't mean they should have jumped to conclusions.
It was unclear until a few days after the event that is was terrorism and not a crazy man. It wasn't until there was the link between Hassan and al-Awlaki and radicalization that one could honestly say it was terrorism.

One thing we all can take away looking at the media is they should just report, and not speculate about motives. They should leave that to the police, then report on that.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree. When the liberal "mainstream" media in particular takes the journalistic high road, there won't be any need for Fox News and conservative talk radio to jump to the right conclusions.

I Wear Pants;641811 wrote:No they don't, what I'm saying is that anytime the right leaning members of the media do something biased or incorrect or before thinking about you guys all excuse it because "it doesn't even balance out the left leaning bias" or something.

I don't like jumping to conclusions any more than you guys do. You'd see that if you read the several times where I've said that this dude being a Republican (which is unlikely anyways as I don't think he had consistant enough views to identify with any party) had nothing to do with him shooting these people. Him being a crazy asshole did.

Your first statement is a flat out lie. I haven't seen anybody here excuse BAD journalism by saying it somehow "balances" out other media. Not once. Ever.

The fact is we're talking about two very high profile incidents and we're talking about the mainstream media -- not blogs or website based media. NBC, CBS, ABC, the NY Times, etc.

Nearly all of those jumped the gun on the Tucson shooting and desperately tried to pin it on right wing vitriol. Hell, some of them are still trying to link it, if only in the most subtle way, like the report I saw on NBC last night that went to great lengths to say it wasn't related to vitriol, but then showed clips ONLY of Tea Party protests against ObamaCare when talking about hateful political discourse.

After a while, all you can do is shake your head and wonder what it's like in those newsrooms. All those like-minded "intellects" working hard to produce garbage like that night after night, and then no doubt having one big happy circle jerk after congratulating one another on a job well done.