Tipsheet
Premium

The Media and Mass Shootings: Bottomless Double Standards

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  March 29, 2023 1:05 PM

Consider this an extension of our earlier post reviewing The Discourse in the wake of an awful school shooting in Nashville, which claimed the lives of six victims, including three nine-year-old children.  The suspect -- shot dead by heroic police officers, who did themselves and their community proud, in stark contrast to other recent debacles -- was a trans person in his or her late-20's.  The murderer purchased multiple guns legally, and was under a doctor's care for an emotional disorder.  The individual reportedly briefly attended the school in question, and passed over another potential target, due to its security presence.  Some on the Right are exploiting the shooter's trans identity to attack LGBT and trans activists broadly, which I view as unfair for reasons already described.  

Some on the Left and in the media (but I repeat myself) are doing everything possible to downplay that angle, including this instant hall-of-famer from Reuters:


We've mentioned the entirely predictable behavior of many journalists, who always treat mass shootings as opportunities to shame Republicans and agitate for gun control.  In this, there is virtually no difference between outright anti-gun activists and much of the journo class.  When conservative rhetoric might be to blame, they run with that, even if it's not actually true.  When the storyline may be more problematic for progressives, it's guns, guns, guns.  CNN spent a lot of effort after the (apolitical) Giffords shooting "reporting" on the 'right-wing rhetoric'/civility angle, hounding GOP officials for comment.  They're doing no such thing to Democrats here, of course, even though it's more than plausible that the killer was a radicalized member of their tribe.  Instead, in addition to chasing down Republicans in hallways over the usual gun shaming, they're also engaged in pure activism by badgering corporations, with absolutely no connection to the Covenant massacre, to comment on or get involved in their push for gun restrictions:


If you missed it, this is how Americans feel about companies meddling in political and social issues.  Many of them get bullied into doing so anyway because of the type of activism seen from CNN and their ideological allies.  By the way, if you think it would be premature to breathlessly cover the 'left-wing rhetoric'  storyline to this atrocity, especially because we haven't seen the killer's manifesto and therefore don't have full evidence of motive yet, I agree.  Facts matter.  But they don't seem to matter when attacking conservatives is in the offing, hence the invented Sarah Palin blamefest after Tucson.  And if you also believe that it's still too early to determine whether a hate crime or domestic terrorism characterization applies to this case, due to the motive being under investigation, I again agree.  Attorney General Merrick Garland's answer here would be totally sensible, in the absence of other examples of this administration racing to conclusions for political reasons in other contexts.  One example:


Relatedly, I gave President Biden a pass for his off-topic joking prior to his first comments about the Nashville murders.  It was a little awkward, but that's all.  But this isn't a great look at all.  You're the president, and kids are dead.  This is neither the time nor place for a "funny" quip about a Republican Senator you personally dislike:

Recommended

The Forever-Tarnished Legacy of Barack Obama Jeff Davidson
Bombshell Report Reveals Disturbing Truths About the Biden-Harris Parole Pipeline Sarah Arnold

President Biden laughed off a question from a reporter on Tuesday about whether the transgender shooter at a Christian elementary school in Nashville was targeting people of faith. “I have no idea,” Biden, 80, told the media assembled outside the White House on Tuesday when asked if Monday’s deadly shooting rampage that claimed the lives of three children and three adults at the Covenant School in Tennessee was an attack targeting Christians. When told that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) believed that the attack did target Christian believers, Biden’s response raised eyebrows. “Well, I probably don’t, then,” Biden said, chuckling after the remark, and then adding, “No, I’m joking. No, I have no idea.”

Classy.  As for the killer's gender identity, I've already stated by opposition to scapegoating groups of people for the actions of individuals -- a standard many on the Left violate every single time a tragedy like this occurs.  It's dogma for them.  But discussing why this person was radicalized, what might have been motivating factors, whether this was an anti-Christian hate crime, etc. are all relevant and legitimate lines of inquiry in connection to this case.  But some journalists are openly bemoaning conservatives' using these factors to "shift the conversation away from gun control."  This is such a revealing and helpful complaint.  Many of them really believe the only thing that should be spoken about is gun restrictions, especially if the other angles they pursue to attack conservatives are inconveniently unavailable.  Some trans activists are urging the media not to publish the manifesto because they don't want blowback:


That story includes a quote from an LGBT leader warning the press to focus not on the killer's motives, but rather to stick to asking about the "deadly weaponry" he/she used.  Stick to the script.  NBC rushed out a piece talking about the fear among trans people in Nashville, furthering a victim narrative.  Obviously, people should not lash out at trans individuals because of what a different trans individual did.  But maybe the biggest victimhood narrative this week isn't the trans community's, given the actions of a member of that community who specifically targeted a Christian school for mass murder.  Much of the media seems utterly incapable of removing its blinders or deviating from the preordained narratives nearly all of them share.  As for the manifesto itself -- and obviously motive matters, even if it makes the 'good' people feel uncomfortable -- I tend to agree that we shouldn't incentivize this sort of bloodshed by elevating the rantings of perpetrators.  This is also why I don't name mass shooters and avoid sharing their image.  But Dan McLaughin's points on this are inarguably correct:

Why are these groups taking this stance? They are plainly afraid that it would be bad to use the shooter’s words because this might cause people to blame other people who share some of the shooter’s ideas. But this is exactly what these groups, and their media advocates, would be doing if the tables were turned. Every sentient adult knows that if a conservative, biblically orthodox Christian shot up a transgender institution, these same people and groups would be pushing the press (which would not need the pushing) to publish the manifesto, precisely so that they could discredit people who shared some of the shooter’s ideas. No honest person could deny this.

1. Do not use the shooter’s name.
2. Do not quote the shooter’s words.
3. Do not blame the victims.
4. Do not generalize about people who share ideas, identity, or characteristics with the shooter.

But if the media give in to these requests only in this case, then turn around — as we know they will — in future cases when there is political benefit to the Left . . . well, we all know what they’re doing, and we all know that the people making those decisions don’t give a damn about the body count caused by encouraging more shooters to seek this kind of publicity.

It's either newsworthy to publish these screeds, or it's not. It doesn't depend on the identity politics utility of the content. My preference would be to explain the sentiments expressed, as it pertains to motive, without publishing the murderous rants for all to see. But consistency matters. Speaking of consistency, Democrats certainly have it when it comes to their demagogic, callow messaging on this stuff:

By the way, if you saw this little online kerfuffle, the Democratic staffer in question is now out.