Vitriolic rhetoric was the buzzword in the wake of the Arizona shooting tragedy at the beginning of this year.
On January 8, 2011, twenty people were shot outside a Safeway grocery store in Casas Adobes, Arizona. Among the victims was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head during her first "Congress on Your Corner" gathering of the year. The suspect, who was identified as Jared Lee Loughner, ran into the crowd surrounding Giffords and began firing. Giffords was in critical condition at first but survived the gun shot, but six of those twenty shot in the crowd were killed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords)
Before the shooting occurred, Sarah Palin had posted this photo to her Facebook page:
Many people were outraged by the photo, since it placed crosshairs over democrats that Palin was advising not to vote back into office, and some even claimed that Palin was partially responsible for the tragedy because this photo constituted "vitriolic rhetoric" that these critics often attributed to the extreme conservative/tea party movement. This article from the Jerusalem Post discusses these claims: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=202836
I'll let you decide whether you think the claims are true for yourself, but let's assume that they are... What media effects theory can we apply to this situation? In the "hypodermic model," also called the "bullet model," described on page 415 of Media Now, media is attributed direct power over its audiences so much so that it is capable of swaying minds with the impact likened to a speeding bullet. When we view the media as a hypodermic needle, we view it as capable of using convincing arguments, propaganda, etc. to change people's beliefs and directly influence their behaviors.
In this clip Whoopie Goldberg says something interesting: "Your words mean something because you are on television. People are listening. Just beware of it." Whether or not the media via Sarah Palin incited action in this case (and I while I don't need to share my opinion in detail, I think it is clear that Jared Lee Loughner is ultimately responsible for his own actions), it is undoubted that the media has power. Audiences attribute authority to media sources. The media is persuasive.
Let's hear your thoughts... Was the media at all to blame for the Arizona shooting? Do you think Sarah Palin was warranted in posting the photo to her Facebook page? Is the criticism directed toward Palin unfair? What do you think?
I think the crosshairs used in Palin's campaign was a bit much. This is supposed to be a society which promotes the succession of power PEACEFULLY through the voting process (and through the relinquishing of power by the losing party and the submitting of it to the voted authority). Using violent imagery to bolster your campaign and rally your constituents goes against the fundamental values of this country. Ultimately, however, I must agree with you in that Loughner, though perhaps persuaded some by Palin's gun rhetoric, must be the one held responsible for his own violent actions.
ReplyDeleteThe Once and Future Something--Thanks for your comment! I do think that Palin's violent imagery seems pretty contradictory to the democratic process!
ReplyDelete