Back in August, Kevin Drum came up with a sensible maxim: “If you’re forced to rely on random blog commenters to make a point about the prevalence of some form or another of disagreeable behavior, you’ve pretty much made exactly the opposite point.” It’s an easy-to-understand concept, which the right has chosen to ignore.
Take this week, for example. A suicide bomber killed nearly two dozen people in Afghanistan at a U.S. military base where Cheney was located. Plenty of liberal bloggers reported on the attack, including me, and the right was anxious to find examples of writers celebrating the bombing. When they had trouble, the right started trawling through comments sections.
Malkin found some Huffington Post commenters saying things such as “Better luck next time!” and “Dr. Evil escapes again … damn.” HuffPo took down the inappropriate comments, but it didn’t matter — the fact that they existed was proof of … well, it’s a little unclear what.
The WaPo’s Howard Kurtz picked up on this today.
This is really sick. I know we’re living in a polarized time. I know there are people who absolutely detest George Bush and Dick Cheney. I know they like to vent their spleen online, sometimes in vulgar terms, and hey, that’s life in a democracy.
But some of the comments posted after a suicide bomber blew himself up at Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Force Base, while Cheney was there–killing as many as 23 people–are nothing short of vile…. Don’t people realize that openly rooting for the death of an American official says way more about them than their intended target? […]
I would agree that it’s absurd to view these assassination fantasies as anything other than the rantings of the fringe, and that they shouldn’t be used to tar an entire ideology. All I’m saying is that it’s really sad that some loons feel this way, and that the Internet culture, however briefly, gives them a megaphone.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment criticizing those who would take pleasure in the bombing, but Kurtz’s broader point seems misplaced.
First, we’re talking about a small handful of anonymous comments on a small handful of blogs. From there, Malkin, Kurtz, and others are pointing to a larger trend of liberal hate.
But they’re missing the point: “If you’re forced to rely on random blog commenters to make a point about the prevalence of some form or another of disagreeable behavior, you’ve pretty much made exactly the opposite point.” Conservatives couldn’t find actual bloggers saying awful things about Cheney and the suicide bombing, so they’re left with cherry-picking through comments sections.
Kurtz writes, “I would agree that it’s absurd to view these assassination fantasies as anything other than the rantings of the fringe, and that they shouldn’t be used to tar an entire ideology.” That’s encouraging, but what, then, is the point of his column? That a handful of unrepresentative anonymous HuffPo readers wrote awful things about Cheney? Why is that interesting? What is it important? Kurtz didn’t say.
Second, and even more importantly, Kurtz argues that the “Internet culture” gives extremists “a megaphone.” Reader Z.G. shared a letter he sent to Kurtz this morning exploring this point in more detail.
Did you and Ms. Malkin express contempt for Ann Coulter (you may have heard of her as she’s not exactly an anonymous commenter) when she wrote, “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.” When asked to clarify, she replied: “Of course I regret it. I should have added ‘after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'”
What about Bill O’Reilly (ring a bell?) when he said that “if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”
Or Sean Hannity (you may have seen him on tv) when he delivered this bon mot: “This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of ’em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the speaker.” DYING.
These are not random low-lifes operating in the shadows. These are men and women (and there are many more examples) who are PAID to attack the left. And before you reply that they are clearly joking, note that their zealous followers take them very seriously.
When high-profile conservatives, in high-profile national settings, talk openly about their violent and homicidal fantasies, that’s “really sick.” When low-profile anonymous blog commenters do it, it’s barely a passing curiosity.
Kurtz, I’m afraid, is playing into the far-right game in a way that overlooks the real problem. It’s a shame — if he’s concerned about the civility of our public discourse, perhaps it’s best to start with Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, and O’Reilly, not random commenters who don’t actually have a “megaphone.”