MSM: Darn It, Faisal, Bomb Scares Are Supposed to Follow a Narrative
Finally, the New York Times is coming around on profiling; they headline a piece, ‘From Suburban Father to a Terrorism Suspect’. Be careful of those suburban dads!
Allahpundit: I feel a little sorry for Contessa Brewer, who’s taking the brunt of the outrage today merely for being dumb enough to say something that her colleagues are too smart to own up to in public. The media’s invested a year in building the narrative that the right is a violent, racist, proto-terrorist movement that no reasonable person could possibly support at the polls. Can you blame them for being bummed that they didn’t get some return on their investment on Saturday night?
In the Corner, Jonah puts his finger on it: “so many of these people, starting with Obama himself but including former Presidents Clinton and Carter, the Democratic Party, the editorial pages of the New York Times, and much of the rest of the liberal dominated media, use this talk about the “rhetorical climate” on the right as a means to bully it into silence. That’s what Obama did in his recent commencement address and that’s what hundreds of commentators and bloggers have been doing in response to the tea parties. They’re saying, “You people need to shut up because you’re aiding and abetting terrorists.” They’re also trying to say to independents: “If you think the rightwingers are persuasive, you need to think again. They’re all just mouthpieces and stalking horses for the homegrown terrorists and the mentally deranged.” And, last, it’s also dangerous. Not because it will breed frustration and anger among Americans who feel unfairly demonized for simply voicing their objections (though if liberals really believe the nonsense they spew about conservatives, they might ponder that). No, it’s dangerous because it causes the country to look for terrorists where they aren’t while telling them not to look for them where they are.”
Mary Katharine Ham: “It’s always important not to jump to conclusions in a suspected terrorism case, unless the conclusion you’re jumping to is that it was a ‘one-off,’ isolated, lone wolf kind of thing. Then, you’re free to speculate all day long . . . I understand the need for the mayor to be careful before assigning blame for a terrorism attempt, but the problem is he’s only careful not to smear one party. If he doesn’t have information, why is only one conclusion off-limits – the one new information happens to support?”
Meanwhile, this morning Erick Erickson notices a story he deems severely under-reported: “If Arizona had decided to become a sanctuary state and the Gov got white powder in the mail, the media would be all over the story.”