There were plenty of places to get news about Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernadino. The old-line news networks were wall-to-wall and buzzing with coverage as soon as word went out that there was yet another shooting at a workplace, this time in California. I rarely consider CBS, NBC, or ABC—save for perhaps my early-morning weather forecast for the day.
Newspapers once practiced who, what, and why journalism, but now, they’re more than likely to be peddling politicized sentiments dressed up as fact. Plenty of media sources, but which one to consider?
I don’t know why, but I kind of like the Wall Street Journal. I know—it’s a Murdoch product these days and anti-business types hate that they take the side of the owners and bosses. There is a certain style and consistency inherent in how the WSJ covers stories, though. As to the matter of “truth,” well there are few places to shop for that particular commodity, at least if we’re comparing the mainstream models.
For the purposes of this blog post, let me focus on how the Journal covered what they were calling, a “Deadly California Rampage.” Granted, the print story I read was probably “put to bed” late in the evening on Wednesday in order to get out Thursday’s paper. I don’t know what their cut-off is for news stories to be filed.
As of Thursday morning, the names of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were being offered as the suspected killers. Both had been shot and killed in a gun battle with law enforcement after a car chase ensued after the multiple shootings at the Inland Regional Center. (this information came from the Los Angeles Times, not the WSJ)
But back to the Journal.
Something jumped out at me in reading the 750 word story. Near the middle of the article, there is this.
Incompetent, or a liar?
The White House said President Barack Obama was monitoring the situation. And in what has become a ritual in the aftermath of a mass shooting, he repeated his call for stricter gun control laws.
“We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world,” Mr. Obama told CBS News in an interview taped Wednesday.
The four guns used by Farook and Malik were purchased legally, so I’m not sure what gun control would have done to prevent the carnage. This is comforting to progressives and anyone with a fear of guns, but a red herring in this case.
The Washington Times (consulted later in the day on Thursday) indicated that the president of the United States was quoted as saying that “authorities aren’t sure whether the mass shootings in San Bernadino, California were related to terrorism.” Say what?
Even though there was another major terrorist incident slightly more than two weeks ago in Paris, France, you and your terrorist-monitoring agencies—the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security—can’t definitively know whether Farook and Malik (the 21st century’s Bonnie and Clyde) were carrying out a terrorist attack? Unbelievable!
Then later, Mr. Obama offered an amendment to his earlier lack of surety.
Speaking from the Oval Office on Thursday, flanked by his national security team, Mr Obama said it was possible that the attack was “terrorist-related” and vowed to “get to the bottom of this”.
This presents you with a choice, dear reader. The selection at the moment is this; are these agencies and our commander in chief incompetent? Or is there obfuscation taking place? Pick your poison.
Michael Savage said during his Thursday broadcast, “if the U.S. were a company, we’d be a penny stock,” because our CEO is “incompetent” (or lying). I can’t say I disagree with the analogy.
If you haven’t been frightened away from Savage by your progressive friends, you might also believe there is a third way to go on the matter of the mass shooting.
Why were most news outlets reticent to mention that the shooters were Muslims? They kept working the “disgruntled worker” angle, time and time again. And why was the “t-word” so slow in being connected to Farook and Malik? Lord knows that no one on the left had any issues uttering “terrorism” when Robert Dear was involved. In fact, ThinkProgress, a notorious left-wing site posted that his actions may have been inspired not only by politics, but also a warped understanding of the Christian faith.
Actually, it was Savage who “picked up the suspect’s name (Farook) from a Twitter account that was monitoring a police scanner” and announced it on the air on Wednesday, more than 5 hours before police publicly identified him? Other driveby media outlets seemed fearful to do the same hours later. Has the New York Times even made that connection 36 hours later?
I can’t count the number of Facebook update from left-leaning “friends” about the Planned Parenthood shooting and the terrorism angle. Will they do the same with Farook and Talik and the San Bernadino killings?
Also, a number of radio commentators were curious why CAIR was so quick to jump out and get in front by holding a press conference (Wednesday evening) after the San Bernadino events unfolded, especially once the killers were identified as Muslims. Were they tipped off by a “friend” inside our own government?
Predictably, we have this from good ole’ Media Matters, a site that never misses a beat in bashing talk radio pundits like Rush LImbaugh,
And oh; what about that “third shooter” that I heard mentioned immediately after the major networks broke away from programming Wednesday afternoon. Nary a mention of him/her on Thursday.
I was thinking of Orwell again as I tried to make heads or tails about the news coming from mainstream media (while seeking alternative channels searching for truth) on Thursday. The word that kept coming to mind was “doublespeak.”
Some Americans are getting fed up with a steady diet of it.
Great piece. Thank You Jimmy.
The guns were purchased legally. I think this is one of the best arguments in support of changing our gun laws. As one of your left-leaning FB friends, I’m more than willing to designate Robert Dear, Farook, and Malik all as terrorists. Obama is clearly not incompetent, nor do I think he’s lying. I do think he’s being cautious about classifying the event in San Bernardino, because authorities have not discovered (and maybe never will) the motives behind the killings. As to the “third shooter”… in the chaotic immediate aftermath of the event, there were reports that there might have been 1-3 gunmen and that police were looking for a black SUV, but they weren’t sure if the occupants of the SUV were the killers or just people fleeing the scene. In retrospect, that appears to be pretty accurate reporting. Maybe there is some conspiracy here or sloppy reporting or obfuscation… but I’m not seeing much evidence of it in this particular case.
First reports are always wrong. Basic rule of military intelligence. So it’s wise to allow for “fog of war” in situations like these. However, there was a third suspect arrested, that went out over police radio. If it was a mistake, it’s simple to correct, so why hasn’t it been corrected? It’s oddly similar to the arrest of the man in the woods behind Sandy Hook Elementary, on school grounds in the middle of supposedly the biggest shoot-em-up in Connecticut history, who completely disappeared afterwards.
Additionally, why the long long long long long delay to officially state the suspect’s names which were known almost immediately because the survivors identified him? Maybe it’s because it didn’t suit the narrative. And then of course, the comic but mandatory appearance of CAIR, repeatedly convicted in Federal courts of supporting terrorism, declaring that they had no idea why Farook did it–maybe his turkey plate was undercooked?
There was also that strange story in the midst of the original reporting that the names were going to be withheld until the suspects’ social media sites were “scrubbed.” Don’t know what that means, but given that the police quickly raided other sites looking for other materiel and people than just the Islamic terrorists’ Redlands home, they obviously knew or learned more (very quickly) than was originally let on.
We can debate the president’s competence, but really, when did the president become the social worker in chief? This is something for California authorities to comment on as a criminal action in that state, not for the president to weigh in on. Until Federal agencies come back with a firm conclusion of terrorism, the president should keep his mouth shut. Not his business. And once they do, he should stop with that mentally incompetent nomenclature “gun violence.” Tell it honestly, include the actor (which isn’t the gun): Muslims used guns. Black gangbangers used guns. “Gun violence” ranks right up there with, say, “Drone violence.” Yeah, that mean old drone just flew around looking for someone to zorch with a Hellfire missile. Old Farook did all he could, but he just couldn’t stop those rifles from leaping out of his car and running up into that banquet hall.
How come all these “mass shootings” (which are almost all done by black gangbangers and Latin American druggies) seem to occur only in “gun free” zones and states with stricter than usual gun laws? Florida, where I live, has very liberal (that is, free) concealed carry laws. It’s a very polite society, all things considered. Very low rates of gun violence, home break-ins almost unheard of, despite the well-known fact that most of Florida’s denizens are not the brightest and most are carrying a grudge of one sort or another. If Farook had tried that here, he would have been outgunned by lawful free men.
@Dave Interesting that you used the term “conspiracy.” I didn’t think I was making a case for any kind of tinfoil hat endeavor. I do think there are many unanswered questions. Mine don’t center on motive. I’m pretty sure I know what the motives were of two Muslims bent on mayhem far beyond shooting up the workplace.
Unlike the MSM, when I write—and in particular, when I blog—I’m not interested in furthering some sacred narrative or working off some pre-determined script. More often than not, I’m trying to work through topics and ideas. I don’t write as much about politics here as I have in the past, but on occasion, when I see something worth weighing in on, I’m going to offer my assessment and thoughts.
There was a time in my life when I was afraid of guns. I mean, literally afraid that the gun somehow would magically get up off the table, load itself, and shoot me. Irrational, I know. However, I think many liberals and anti-gun types are in that former place. Just the other day, a classmate from LHS offered an honest assessment of his own reason he didn’t like guns, and it was similar. I respect that.
I’ve always tried to move beyond fear, especially the irrational kinds. Training and actually handling firearms in a safe manner has eliminated my fear. Respect is a totally different thing. I respect any gun. Fuck up, and you might shoot a finger off, or something much worse. There are some guns I won’t own because they are far and beyond my needs and capacity to safely control them. I think the majority of gun owners fall into the latter category.
“Change our gun laws” smacks of being code for, “let’s crack down on legal and law-abiding gun owners.” The criminals will find a way to get their guns to carry out their illegal activity. Reducing the number of guns, a shibboleth trotted out often, just means a more robust black market for guns—kind of like it is for drugs. Why legalize drugs and turn around and make guns illegal. People die from drug overdoses. Shouldn’t drugs be illegal?
Who isn’t for background checks? Of course, we increase government regulation and who knows. There’s likely a national registry down the road. And then what?
I have no doubt that President Obama (along with people like Chellie Pingree) favor an endgame of making the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition illegal, save for the military, law enforcement, and a select few others, illegal. That in my estimation is a recipe for tyranny.
There was a time when I would have thought that kind of talk was coming from a spokesman for the NRA. Now, I realize that it comes from me taking a realistic position on guns and protection. I’ve also adopted other more realistic positions that actually mesh with the world I’m living in, not some Utopia that I’m hoping for.
@LP I’m with you on location and mass shootings. Most perps intent on mayhem are looking to lessen that odds that they’ll get shot at.
It’s a strikingly common phenomenon that someone anti-gun with the kind of fears you described gets taken to the range and it all turns around. Once they take apart and reassemble the weapon, it’s clear that it has no life or power of its own, only what a person gives it. The fear is gone, but the respect remains.