At Pajamas Media, Bob Owens has a good article on the double standard of the mainstream media when it comes to covering politically motivated violence:
During the recent health care debate in Congress, the media was quick to latch on to every perceived slight or hurt, real or imagined, directed at Democrats. They offered wall-to-wall coverage of phoned-in threats of violence against Democratic representatives, even as they hastened to downplay the stray bullet that crashed through an office belonging to Republican Eric Cantor.
These same media outlets were quick to pounce on reports that a handful of Democratic offices were vandalized, and they seemed to relish in discussing the glory-hound, former militia leader who sought to claim credit for the handful of broken windows.
The message from the media was clear: any violence against their liberal allies will be broadcast far and wide, and any threat or slur will be published as fact, no matter how dubious the claim.
The reverse, sadly, is not true, and that is not a recent development.
When speculating about why the media refuses to honestly cover the violence perpetrated by the Left, Owens comes to a conclusion that’s a mirror image of one I came to a few years ago when The New Republic published the fraudulent stories of Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Then, I speculated that TNR fell for Beauchamp’s slanderous stories about the US military in Iraq because they wanted to believe them. In the case of the MSM and left-wing violence, Owen offers the flip-side: they don’t want to believe, and so they pretend as much as they can that it does not exist.
Neither is healthy for journalism or democracy in America.