How the Media Politicizes Crime Coverage
Words matter. So does equal treatment. So, when the New York Times recently devoted a top-of-the-front-page, three column wide article equating the actions and words of the El Paso mass murderer to those of “right wing pundits”* I was curious to say the least. Was The Gray Lady saying conservatives somehow convinced someone to commit mass murder?
Extensively quoting (mostly) Fox News hosts and their guests the Times concluded that when speaking about the nation’s immigration crisis at the Southwestern border the words “invaders” or invasion” were used unashamedly and all too frequently by those they labeled “right wing pundits.” Also, the Times reported that those same people regularly used the word “replace” while discussing immigration. The paper quoted Fox News prime time host Tucker Carlson as saying, “I’m not against the immigrants. I’m just – I’m for Americans, and nobody cares about them. It’s like, shut up, you’re dying. We’re going to replace you.”
Tucker Carlson, Fox News Prime Time Program Host – wiki commons photo
The Times quoted the killer’s 2,300-word internet manifesto in which he said he was simply defending his country “from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion,” adding in a cryptic tone, “There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart.”
Wow. That seemed like a stretch to me, especially since deeper into the story the Times’ writers admitted it was unclear what had shaped the warped mind of Patrick Crusius, the 21-year-old Walmart killer. There was no proof that Crusius even watched Fox News or listened to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who was also quoted.
The article was striking for what it didn’t mention, namely other catalysts that might have influenced Crusius. Like the widely reported statistic that between January and July of this year nearly 700,000 migrants were either deemed “inadmissible” or apprehended trying to cross the into the Southwestern United States. Maybe that is what influenced the Texas native to go on his killing spree?
Courtesy: Blue Diamond Gallery
The Times didn’t quote any friends or relatives of the gunman who might have given some insight into his actual mindset. No, the liberal leaning newspaper went straight for the “right wing pundit” comparison. No surprise really, the day after the deadly August 3rd Walmart shooting the Time’s headline read: “El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language.” Obviously, there is an agenda at play here.
What the media-at-large lacks these days is fair and equal perspective on issues and events. It seems every news story is now cast in a political light negative to the party the news organization doesn’t align itself with.
Connor Betts, courtesy: Wiki Commons
Notice that there wasn’t nearly as much coverage devoted to the other mass shooter making news around the same time. Connor Betts, 24, committed mass murder in Dayton, Ohio after long spewing a hate filled liberal agenda. Online Betts praised Satan, the Antifa street protests and violence against conservatives. Police had intervened when Betts was found with a “kill” and “rape” list of boys and girls he planned to harm at his high school.
I haven’t found one news outlet making the leap between the now deceased Connor’s radical politics and his mass murder spree which left 9 innocents dead, including his own sister. No New York Times analysis can be found comparing what Betts might have heard on MSNBC or CNN that could have catapulted him to embark on his deadly spree. Yet Betts was known as an ardent supporter of presidential candidates Sanders and Warren, two Senators who enjoy ample coverage on those two cable channels.
That any news organization wants to analyze a mass murderer’s mindset is commendable. We need to try to understand what triggers these killings. But to only study gunmen on one side of the political spectrum smacks of opportunistic and biased journalism.
Did Fox News Trigger a Mass Shooter?
In this era when newsroom staffs, nationwide, are down to bare bones it is liberal leaning newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post that set the tone for copycat news coverage across the country. For those who got their news about the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings by going through Google, an audit by the independent site AllSides.com showed readers were steered to liberal news providers — like the Times, the Washington Post and CNN — a vast majority of the time. You are simply not getting a balance news diet. Period.
Yes, words matter and, collectively, the media sends out millions of them every day. Their oftentimes biased phrases and slanted stories have helped create and perpetuate the gigantic ideological schism we live with today. There is so much dissension and hate on both sides of the political divide it leaves one wondering when the mutual implosion will occur.
It’s a good bet that this kind of reporting will live through, at least, 2020. So, it is up to citizens to digest this kind of coverage while simultaneously drinking from the cup of critical thinking.
###
Reader Nancy M. King writes:
Diane,
Thanks for the well-reasoned opinion on biased journalism. Unfortunately, my left leaning friends will only read the NYTimes and watch CNN or MSNBC. The right wingers will only watch FOX. And they all take their selected media as the gospel. I, being a pessimist, call us a “nation in decline.” It’s pathetic that the Trump haters are hoping for a recession. But we’ll somehow survive.
Best regards.
Nancy
Reader Kevin McKeown writes:
If the progressives/social Democrats get elected and open the borders, rewrite American history, take away guns, throw the country into unemployment with their expenditures, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet from crazed right wingers.
I maintain we are repeating 1858 all over again. I’m not saying what I’ll do, but the left had better know what they are starting. Will they be ready to fight for what they believe in? Because acquaintances of mine on the right are ready.
I don’t like what I’m seeing.
Also, I watched an old tape of mine of Obama talking about the border crisis involving thousands of Hondurans entering illegally. And how we have to do something. Wow! How things have changed.
Much of the new politics afflicting this country stems from ignorance. Educated people- most of my friends- do not read history, watch the news, read newspapes, read books, listen to both sides of talk radio.
Rather, they get all their info from a website like Smartnews, or something else on their smartphones. Yuppie friends of mine don’t watch TV or listen to the radio. I feel like an old geezer around them. And these people are software engineers, scientists, techies, nurses, doctors, administrators, etc. All hating Trump with a passion.
Kevin McKeown
Reader David Mcculloch writes:
Diane,
Thanks for a very inciteful column this morning. I have been noticing that the “news” no longer reports the facts. It reports opinions disguised as facts.
Yesterday’s headline in the Albuquerque Journal reports something to the effect of “yet another man killed by police”. Why are they doing this? The cops are on our side! Who do you call when someone threatens you, or steals your car, or beats up your wife? You call the cops. So why is the newspaper constantly printing headlines with this obvious bias? It was obviously written by and for people who hate cops. There are people like that, i admit. But what is this type of headline doing on the front page of a newspaper? It belongs on the editorial page.
Thanks again for what you do. You know, “voice of reason” and all that stuff.
Reader Michael Baron PHD writes:
Good morning, Diane,
We agree: “Words matter.” We can devote words to explain “causes” of gun violence, we can devote words toward possible “solutions” to it, or we can use words that do neither but effectively sell newspapers and advertising time and space.
Here are some words that look at solutions: Since Connecticut and Indiana implemented “red flag” laws, they have had a combined reduction of 10% in firearm suicides. States with universal background checks for all gun sales had 15% lower homicide rates than states without such laws. And states with laws prohibiting firearm possession by people convicted of violent crimes showed an 18% reduction in homicide rates. Is that sufficient evidence of “what works?” If one, two, or all three of these laws were extended nationally, we might see 5,000 or considerably more lives spared each year, 100 or more each week.
“Causes,” or the explanation of causes is speculative conjecture, but makes for more interesting reading. A person seeking amelioration of depression would rather become happy without a grand theory of “cause,” than remain depressed but knowing “why.” Let’s use a bit of data as a base, then wax theoretical. Over 36 years, 1981-2016, from Reagan to Obama, the number of victims of mass shootings (deaths and injuries) averaged 44 each year. Since Trump took office the annual number of victims has increased about 900% to 377 annually, more in these three than the past 20 years. Maintain that one more year (2020), and that’s essentially equivalent to the prior 9 presidential terms. Coincidence? Maybe. Causation or correlation? Good question.
Two years after he was elected, ABC News found at least 17 criminal cases invoking Trump’s name in connection with violent acts, threats of violence, or alleged assaults. In nearly all cases, there was direct evidence of echoing the President’s rhetoric. ABC News was unable to find any similar invoking of George W. Bush’s or Barack Obama’s names during criminal acts when they were President during the previous 16 years. Trump’s name was invoked earlier this year in New Zealand by an extremist who burned down two mosques.
Recall the journalist who was body slammed by Montana Congressman Greg Gianforte last fall. Trump: “Any guy that can do a body slam — he’s my kind of guy,” he was reported to have said “to cheers and laughter from the crowd.” And added: “He’s a great guy, tough cookie.” Fast forward to this month. According to the Idaho Sate Journal, “A Montana man charged with assaulting a 13-year-old boy who refused to remove his hat during the national anthem believed he was doing what President Donald Trump wanted him to do, his attorney said.”
Even in nearby Los Lunas, New Mexico this summer, a man there was charged with threatening the ACLU on social media. Here’s what they reported in the Albuquerque Journal:
On Facebook he wrote, “You bitches want a Physical Civil War. I’m Game. I’ll Bring My Farm Implements and They Will Never find your bodies. AND for Fun I’ll BURN Every ACLU office in the State. GO TRUMP GO!”
The man’s attorney says it’s a mental health issue. Our President calling Kim Jung Un “Rocket man” could have exacerbated a nuclear holocaust. Arguably, baiting someone into a game of nuclear holocaust “chicken” is a mental health issue. But that’s theoretical speculation.
I agree “words matter,” and so do actions. I say we put questionable theories and labels aside, let’s look at the data, rely less on our after-the-fact, go-to “thoughts and prayers,” and focus on interventions which may show promise.
All the best,
Mike
Reader Daniel Hutchison writes:
You were spot on in your article. Thanks
Reader G. Smith writes:
The political beliefs and media listening habits of someone who carries out a mass murder have no meaning to the person who gets the bullets in them. It is relevant to try and undertake some action that could prevent future events from a person who ascribes to a particular set of hateful ideology, such as blatant prejudice against Hispanics. This might not stop someone who has serious mental illness from doing something but you know what will? Outlaw weapons that are only meant for killing and wounding humans in combat situations. Buy the guns back, quit making them. Let our children and all citizens live without the fear that the insane policies dictated by the NRA, and the politicians they buy, have created for this country.
Greg Smith
Reader Denise Robles writes:
Cherry picking exceptions to a general nationalistic trend and deflecting. Of course despite his inflammatory rhetoric the ‘President’ didn’t pull any triggers. How could he be blamed? And all the ‘liberal’ (maybe by your standards) press except Fox is biased. You are disgusting. Maybe you can get another gig on Fox.
Reader Jim Allday writes:
Diane,
You say words matter, so does equal treatment. However, you seem to feel that the left-leaning media slants their coverage of violence and shootings against the right versus being neutral/equal in their coverage of these events.
However, I feel that the right tends to voice more comments promoting/inciting violence than the right. In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred. As such, I believe there is a reason why the left-leaning media slants their coverage of violence and shootings towards those who advocate violence.
Some quotes of Trump’s promoting violence:
Trump referenced Rep. Greg Gianforte’s 2017 attack on a reporter by saying that “any guy who can do a body slam, he is my type!
Even in elementary school, I was a very assertive, aggressive kid,” Trump wrote in the bestseller. “In the second grade I actually gave a teacher a black eye — I punched my music teacher because I didn’t think he knew anything about music and I almost got expelled. I’m not proud of that but it’s clear evidence that even early on I had a tendency to stand up and make my opinions known in a very forceful way. The difference now is that I like to use my brain instead of my fists.”
“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell … I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise,” he said on Feb. 1, 2016.
At a Las Vegas rally later that month, he said security guards were too gentle with a protester. “He’s walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing,” Trump said. “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”
“When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head you know, the way you put their hand over [their head],” Trump continued, mimicking the motion. “Like, ‘Don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head.’ I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK?’
“I’d like to punch him in the face”. Trump said this in front of a crowd of supporters, after a protester was removed from one of his rallies in Las Vegas on 23 February 2016
Even those these are only a few examples, I believe when taken in toto, that one could easily make a case that Trump promotes/incites violence. As such, the left-leaning media slants its coverage of violence and shootings towards those who advocate violence, which just so happens to be those on the right.
Thank you for listening.
Reader Mark Janis writes:
Diane Dimonds screed about the El Paso shooting was pure right wing drivel: it was motivated by hatred driven by right wing hate radio and Trumps insane tweets.
MRJ
Mark Janis
Reader Neil Elliott writes:
Columnist Diane Dimond’s stunning exercise in deflection (“Left-Leaning Media Was Quick to Politicize Shooting,” Aug. 24, 2019) excoriates the New York Times for observing the “overlap” of right-wing white-supremacist discourse with the manifesto a mass-murderer posted online before killing twenty-two people in El Paso. “There was no proof [the murderer] even watched Fox News,” she writes; so, presumably, right-wing media should get a pass. After all––she actually wrote this under her own name––in the first half of 2019, “nearly 700,000 migrants were either deemed ‘inadmissible’ or apprehended trying to cross into the Southwestern United States. Maybe that is what influenced the Texas native to go on his killing spree?”
So, according to Dimond, the media hacks spouting white supremacist talking points shouldn’t be blamed for succeeding at spreading their ideology. It’s brown folks’ own fault that, because there are so darned many of them, a number of white people just naturally panic and reach for semi-automatic rifles. This passes, in the pages of the Journal, for opinion deserving publication.
But Dimond isn’t done; her target is, predictably, the left and its supposedly subservient media. Why, she asks, aren’t newspapers as obsessed as she is with tying the Dayton, Ohio, killer to progressive Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, whom he apparently endorsed with “likes” on a Twitter account to which he was linked?
One reason might be that neither Sanders nor Warren has made incendiary remarks about ethnic groups (or any other groups) as “invaders,” “animals” who are a grave menace to the nation. Another might be that the Dayton murderer also “liked” the white supremacist El Paso murderer; he was, police reported, obsessed with violence. Political ideology seems to have been less relevant to his motives than a fascination with mass murderers. He also kept a hit list that included girls who had refused his advances, a fact that makes it hard to tie him to a left-wing ideology––so, a fact Dimond ignores.
Dimond’s understanding of journalism is that “both sides” need to be represented in “a balance[d] news diet,” apparently meaning that “both sides” of the political spectrum must be blamed equally, regardless of where facts point. This she calls “critical thinking.” We’re left wondering whether the Journal (which employs her) shares her view of journalism.
Neil Elliott
Albuquerque
Reader Michael Baron writes:
dwestphal@abqjournal.com
8:33 PM (1 hour ago)
to me, dwestphal
Original letter is below:
In response to Diane Dimond’s “Left-leaning media was quick to politicize shooting,” I say we agree: “Words matter.” We can devote words to explain “causes” of gun violence, we can devote words toward possible “solutions” to it, or we can use words that do neither but effectively sell newspapers and advertising time and space.
Here are some words that look at solutions: Since Connecticut and Indiana implemented “red flag” laws, they have had a combined reduction of 10% in firearm suicides. States with universal background checks for all gun sales had 15% lower homicide rates than states without such laws. And states with laws prohibiting firearm possession by people convicted of violent crimes showed an 18% reduction in homicide rates. Is that sufficient evidence of “what works?” If one, two, or all three of these laws were extended nationally, we might see 5,000 or considerably more lives spared each year, 100 or more each week.
“Causes,” or the explanation of causes is speculative conjecture, but makes for more interesting reading. A person seeking amelioration of depression would rather become happy without a grand theory of “cause,” than remain depressed but knowing “why.” Let’s use a bit of data as a base, then wax theoretical. Over 36 years, 1981-2016, from Reagan to Obama, the number of victims of mass shootings (deaths and injuries) averaged 44 each year. Since Trump took office the annual number of victims has increased about 900% to 377 annually, more in these three than the past 20 years. Maintain that one more year (2020), and that’s essentially equivalent to the prior nine presidential terms. Coincidence? Maybe. Causation or correlation? Good question.
Two years after he was elected, ABC News found at least 17 criminal cases invoking Trump’s name in connection with violent acts, threats of violence, or alleged assaults. In nearly all cases, there was direct evidence of echoing the President’s rhetoric. ABC News was unable to find any similar invoking of George W. Bush’s or Barack Obama’s names during criminal acts when they were President during the previous 16 years. Trump’s name was invoked earlier this year in New Zealand by an extremist who burned down two mosques.
Recall the journalist who was body slammed by Montana Congressman Greg Gianforte last fall. Trump: “Any guy that can do a body slam — he’s my kind of guy,” he was reported to have said “to cheers and laughter from the crowd.” And added: “He’s a great guy, tough cookie.” Fast forward to this month. According to the Idaho Sate Journal, “A Montana man charged with assaulting a 13-year-old boy who refused to remove his hat during the national anthem believed he was doing what President Donald Trump wanted him to do, his attorney said.”
Even in nearby Los Lunas, New Mexico this summer, a man there was charged with threatening the ACLU on social media. Here’s what they reported in the Albuquerque Journal:
“On Facebook he wrote, ‘You bitches want a Physical Civil War. I’m Game. I’ll Bring My Farm Implements and They Will Never find your bodies. AND for Fun I’ll BURN Every ACLU office in the State. GO TRUMP GO!’”
The man’s attorney says it’s a mental health issue. Our President calling Kim Jung Un “Rocket man” could have exacerbated a nuclear holocaust. Arguably, baiting someone into a game of nuclear holocaust “chicken” is a mental health issue. But that’s theoretical speculation.
I agree “words matter,” and so do actions. I say we put questionable theories and labels aside, let’s look at the data, rely less on our after-the-fact, go-to “thoughts and prayers,” and focus on interventions which may show promise. As Dimond closed, let’s drink “from the cup of critical thinking.”
Michael Baron
Reader Nancy NICOLARY writes:
Hello Ms. Dimond,
BRAVO! Loved the honest directness of your column of Saturday, 8/24/19!! (Not that previous columns haven’t been commendable!)
I hope that you have a huge following of readers that don’t accept, unquestionably, everything they read, see and hear, – particularly from the biased media!
Every time I read the newspaper, I become more stressed over the writings, many by Associated Press people. They seem to have total freedom of speech, and use it to, sometimes subtly, influence toward their way, and their boss’s way of thinking. Perhaps too if the media stopped glorifying criminal activity by giving them front page notoriety, some might re-think their actions.
I truly can appreciate that you are trying to put the facts out there in such a manner that readers will give deeper thought to the topics presented.
(I should stick to the only section of the paper that I enjoy – The Jumble and The Word Sleuth, and, of course Crime and Justice …)
Regards,
Nancy Nicolary
Reader Kurt K Guy writes:
Any type of media can influence someone bent on bad intentions, but in the end I’ve only heard a few advocate violence. And those I’ve found usually come from the left.
The fact is the media (news pundits/Hollywood) are overwhelming liberal and they’re not shy of pushing their agenda.
Just the facts are a thing of the past.
Reader Madeline Michele Hovey writes:
I’m not just gonna blame Fox but they sure don’t help with all their hate
Reader William Beerman, Sr. writes:
Dear Ms. Dimond,
Thank you for doing the subject article.
I have written the NYT telling them I will soon cancel my subscription. As an old-school ex-journalist who graduated from Penn State School of Journalism in 1970 — when reporters and editors were taught and followed standards and ethics — I cannot stomach the NYT. I subscribed to it a few months ago after canceling the Wall Street Journal. My wife likes to read a daily national newspaper, and I thought I could overlook the NYT’s bias on political stories. I was wrong. I suggested that just as the NYT highlighted in yellow all instances of the words invader or invasion in conservative media, they should publish excerpts of their own articles highlighting in yellow all instances of their use of the word racism or racist.
William J. Beerman, Sr.