Palin & A Surreal MSM Narrative

For the past several days, the right have been savaged in the media with what is accurately described as a blood libel - a false assertion that one is responsible for murder. And in particular, no one on the right has been so savaged as Sarah Palin. So if anyone has a right to respond and push back against this morally bankrupt attempt by the left to delegitimize and silence conservative speech in America, it is and was Sarah Palin.

And she did so yesterday morning. After making a statement of condolences for the dead and injured, Palin stated that speech by the right was not responsible for mass murder in Arizona and that, "within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel."

This has lit a fire under the already energized MSM hacks:

ABC opined that "instead of trying to get beyond this controversy, Palin has put herself back in the middle of it" and that "Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story." Could those statements be anymore surreal. Palin didn't insert herself into the middle of the story, nor did she by her acts "become part of the story." All of that was forced on her by a rabid, morally bankrupt left-wing media. ABC is turning this on its head with a none too veiled criticism of her for having the temerity of defending herself.

CBS's treatment was by far and away the most outrageous, with Don Farber, EDITOR IN CHIEF of CBS News, writing a libelous screed that ends with him accusing Palin of playing the "victim card." Faber is apparently signalling his desire to take over at MSNBC if a slot opens up.

Farber starts by stipulating that which we now know, that Loughner was insane and was not motivated by Sarah Palin or anyone else on the right to commit murder. Then Farber brushes it off as meaningless - in other words, asking the reader not to confuse the issue by worrying about the facts:

Regardless of what motivated Loughner to pull the trigger, the tragedy in Tucson has put the tone of political discourse, and those who tend to inflame more than inform, in the spotlight."

After this non-sequitur, Faber focuses fully on the utterly discredited meme that Palin's use of crosshairs on a campaign map has, in and of itself, taken political discourse in America to a heretofore unseen level of militancy, concluding:

But Palin doesn't seem to think that there are any negative consequences associated with her campaign words and images."

Precisely what those consequences are, Faber never says, but he does his level best to imply that one of those consequences was Loughner's mass murder. Seizing on her defense, that the left is involved in a blood libel against her and the right, Faber states:

Blood libel is the false accusation, perhaps originating in the 12th century, that Jews murder children to use their blood for religious rituals and holidays. Palin appears to be appropriating the term to indicate that she is a victim, as a result of some groups and individuals claiming that her political rhetoric contributed to the actions of the deranged, lone gunman.

But the real victims are Rep. Giffords and the others who were wounded or killed, not Palin, . . .

Could Faber be more scurrilous, insinuating both that Palin has not been tarred with the tsunami of accusations against her and that she is trying to callously make of herself a victim on par with those shot and wounded. This is Pravda territory. That this hyper-partisan, intellectually dishonest joker is the senior editor for CBS News should indeed give everyone pause.

NBC, for its part, had Anderea Mitchell declare Palin "ignorant" for using the term "blood libel," as have many others. Why it is "ignorant" Mitchell does not explain. But indeed, the first person to call the acts of the left concerning this mass murder a "blood libel" was no one less than Robert Avrech, the deeply religious Jewish award winning screen writer, on his blog, Seraphic Secret. Moreover, famed Jewish lawyer and Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz, when asked for an opinion, stated that he found Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel" wholly appropriate in this context.

And in a sign, for those who believed the President's oh so careful phrasing in his speech last night was telling those on the left to stop the blood libel, the NYT apparently interpreted his speech differently, writing today:

The president’s words were an important contrast to the ugliness that continues to swirl in some parts of the country. The accusation by Sarah Palin that “journalists and pundits” had committed a “blood libel” when they raised questions about overheated rhetoric was especially disturbing, given the grave meaning of that phrase in the history of the Jewish people.

Note what the NYT is doing here, turning reality on its head. Seraphic Secret spoke to this well worn technique of the left the other day, preemptively accusing one's opponent of committing the sins of which the accuser is guilty. These people are deeply unethical. And Politico's take on this is no better than the NYT.

And in a final exclamation point to this surreal media feeding frenzy, there was this from ABC News this morning:

This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.

Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.

Facts are fickle things for the left.