While reading and participating in this great diary about Newt Gingrich's preposterous new construct of Violent Secular Gay Fascists the issue arose about the media's responsibility to press him and hold him accountable to explain exactly who this bizarre sect is, and how he has knowledge of the violence he asserts that they are "planning" and has he taken the proper steps and notified the authorities of this planned violence? I made the statement that the media has a "larger responsibility" to respond to Newt than the rest of us as just Joe Average citizens, although of course we should call him on his BS at every opportunity. Another poster asked why I thought the media had a larger responsibility which is the genesis of this diary.
How would you answer the question -
Does the media have an obligation to intrude with commentary and questions when the marketplace of ideas is being polluted with publicly spewed sewage? I'm talking stuff so stinky that no sentient human being can ignore the stench.
Yes or No?
To decide, let's look at the recent opportunity offered us by Newt Gingrich and his scary new Threat Against America As We Know It. According to Newt, apparently brigades of Secular Gay Fascists right this moment are planning acts of violence and harassment in basements and garages around the country. Because this statement of Newt's is so over-the-top outrageous, it is very easy to lose ourselves in making hilarious ripostes to his assertion. And we would lose if we did that.
Because Newt was completely serious. Believe it or not, he was not joking. And the people he was speaking to were not laughing. Because Newt told them this new threat was "violent" he was setting the stage for them to respond in kind. Violence against violence is generally considered self-defense. So Newt is subliminally setting up the "we need to get them before they get us" violent mindset of his audience. To me, Newt Gingrich is actually advocating specific violence against the GLBT community. If you don't hear that, you're not listening. I cannot begin to tell you how abhorrent I find the man and his words. I may be accused of hyperbole, but I think he has definitely entered into Radio Rwanda territory.
Now, this has been reported and shown on TV. When any shows in the future have Newt Gingrich on as a guest, he brings this baggage with him. He can't unsay his words, we can't unhear them. So will responsible journalists and newscasters treat him as a serious candidate for the highest office in the land? If they have Newt on and act like he is someone to be listened to, they in effect legitimize him. If they don't question him or push him about his outrageous statements, they strengthen him.
Now, imagine if Fox News started and then other networks followed and began airing pitbull fights, but without any commentary at all that said "This is wrong, this is vicious, this is cruel", and instead their viewpoint was simply "Hey, here are some pitbull fights. Let's all just watch. We're not saying if this is right or wrong, we're just providing a platform."
Don't you think after a while people would become familiar with pitbull fights and inured to their inherent wrongness? Wouldn't some people start to think, "How bad can it be? They show it on TV and it doesn't bother anyone. I like it. In fact, I think I will buy a pitbull and train him to fight."
This is exactly what is happening to our political debate these days. The media provides a platform for completely anti-social, ignorant, violence promoting viewpoints and then acts like they are in the normal range of actual events when they are clearly not.
This is what came to pass with John Kerry and Swiftboats, it is what happened with Birther conspiracies, it is what happened in making torture suddenly acceptable. With their promotion of the intolerable, the media is coarsening and polluting political interaction and corrupting our better selves every day. The insidiousness of their inaction has horrifying and widespread negative results.
That is what I meant by saying they have a larger responsibility to do the right thing.