The Atlantic caused quite a stir over the weekend when they published Dan Panneton's claim that the rosary has become a co-opted symbol of "extremist gun culture" as Matt covered earlier on Monday. Panneton's piece was even published on a Sunday, which happened to be the eve of a Catholic holy day, the Feast of the Assumption. As it turns out, though, that piece wasn't the only problematic one that the Atlantic recently published. On Friday, the outlet published "The Right’s New Bogeyman" by Kaitlyn Tiffany, downplayed, dismissed, and sought to discredit claims of violence from the pro-abortion extremists known as Jane's Revenge.
"Right-wing media outlets have provided ample coverage of this new threat, and anti-abortion politicians have demanded government action to address it. But the group’s practical significance remains in question. Just how meaningful is Jane’s Revenge?," Tiffany writes early on, with a very telling "but."
Going along with her headline, that it all appears to be in the mind of pro-lifers, the documented attacks are always cited as something the victims and those in the pro-life movement refer to.
Notice the theme of anti-Catholicism from The Atlantic, in this case from Tiffany's piece, with added emphasis:
News articles about the threat of Jane’s Revenge have also clustered at conservative sources. Gallagher noted that many of these cite a list of more than 100 “attacks on churches, pro-life organizations, property, and people since the Dobbs Leak” created by the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank. That includes specific incidents of arson for which Jane’s Revenge has claimed credit in its blog posts, but also many other property crimes, such as smashed windows and pro-abortion-rights graffiti. One report on the list describes a fire at a Catholic bookstore that has not been ruled an arson, much less a politically charged attack. Eleven other instances of reported vandalismor suspected arson on the list have no obvious ties to Jane’s Revenge or the Dobbs decision. Three involve broken statues at Catholic churches, for example, and nothing more. A pastor in Arizona simply guessed that “pro-abortionists” and “the wrath of ‘Jane’s Revenge’-type vandalism” must have been responsible for another one—a rock thrown through his church’s front window.
The next paragraph doesn't only contain another "but," as Tiffany continues to convince readers that Jane's Revenge is no big deal. There's also a comparison to former President Donald Trump and Fox News, speaking of a "bogeyman," and one used ad nauseam:
Pro-abortion-rights activists have engaged in vandalism in recent weeks, and the blog posts associated with Jane’s Revenge are actively encouraging the behavior. But that does not imply the existence of a complex, coordinated campaign of violence. “Looking at the way in which the moral panic around antifa operated throughout the Trump years is a really good way of understanding what’s happening now with the Jane’s Revenge activity,” Stanislav Vysotsky, a sociologist and the author of the 2020 book American Antifa, told me. “Fox News is responding to something that is partially real and elevating the threat and elevating the perception of danger.” Antifa is not a group with an organizational structure or membership list, though there are some self-proclaimed chapters of antifa activists at the local level. Jane’s Revenge appears to be even less tangible, and Vysotsky said he wouldn’t even call it a “group.” Based on the scattering of random “Jane’s Revenge” graffiti that has been shared on Twitter in recent weeks, in bathrooms at fast-food restaurants and big-box stores, he said the name may be nothing more than a “tag” that can be affixed to any action with a certain style and intent. Other activists’ references to the “Animal Liberation Front” and the “Earth Liberation Front” serve the same function, he said.
Tiffany continues to talk about Antifa, from the perspective of denouncing Republicans for calling them out. There's no mention of the violence that Antifa has actually perpetuated, including and especially against Andy Ngô, who is mentioned in Tiffany's piece as someone who has discussed the violence of Jane's Revenge.
The comparison between Antifa and Jane's Revenge is that Tiffany blames Republicans for empowering both groups by daring to talk about them. "A fixation on the threat of “Jane’s Revenge” may ultimately contribute to its spread, Vysotsky told me," she writes.
It's worth noting that at no point does Tiffany condemn such violence, which makes her piece that much worse. Again, she consistently casts doubt that such incidents have even happened.
Such a piece was published eight days after FBI Director Chris Wray appeared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. While being questioned by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tom Cotton (R-AR), Wray was not sufficiently able to answer questions as to how the bureau is protecting pro-life organizations or conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The White House is mentioned very briefly, in that "White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre did say that President Joe Biden 'denounces' Jane’s Revenge activity." There's no mention, however, of how the Biden administration has been criticized for not doing enough when it comes to denouncing and prosecuting those responsible for such crimes against pro-life pregnancy centers, organizations, and churches. Such criticism also extends to handling of how conservatives justices have been targeted with illegal protests and even assassination attempts.
Just as The Atlantic's tweet sharing Panneton's article was sufficiently ratioed, so was Tiffany's piece, with our friends at Twitchy picking up on the appropriately-placed outrage for both articles.