The way I saw it, however, was more of "hey 'traditional media' isn't this what you're supposed to be doing?". Time and time again I find myself being drawn to political satire such as The Daily Show and Colbert Report to even The Onion or late night personalities. Why? Because they are actually being "fair and balanced".
The shooting that took place in Tuscon, AZ is a tragedy and is still a shocking event. From all the information I can gather from news reports, the suspect acted alone and without any motive to make a political statement. Yet, blame is being put on political talking heads and sections of political parties by the mainstream media.
However, while pundits, commentators, journalists and columnist all play their usual games of speculation and finger pointing there is a voice of reason, which comes from a comedian.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Battle of the Bans | ||||
| ||||
You see, Stewart makes a very reasonable point (2:26):
"Most of us don't need clarification on the whole 'Thall shall not kill' thing. And for the ones that do, clarification never seems quite specific enough."TRANSLATION For many laws they only affect those that already abide by them, not the ones that don't care who are the intended targets (ahhh).
Need an apples to apples comparison?
You're only making a law for the good apples, the bad apples don't care what the good apples do, the bad apples will try to spoil the whole bunch.
Another point made by Stewart and a growing question among many Americans, why do government officials/employees get special treatment ov
er other (private) citizens? Other than their job title what makes them different or more important? I can think of a lot of private citizens and/or company officials that the general public does not agree with and whom I assume have had threats against them personally or threats against their company.
Additionally, while the intent of Rep. Brady (D-PA) is to prohibit the use of threatening symbols (allowing this would be in violation of the First Amendment) I find it hard to believe that the language in the proposed legislation would clearly define what is/is not allowed. Working in a government affairs shop and seeing how legislation and regulation is written the original intent far exceeds what is presented. I can see Target (the private retail store) having to reconfigure their location map. Why? Because they brand very well and use their "target" symbol on a map to visually represent their store locations, thus fall within the definition of showing a "violent symbol" in a political district. While this would seem like two separate meanings by rational people must legislation based on the wording does not differentiate rational vs. irrational intent.
What happened in Tuscon is beyond horrible and I pray for the families and people affected by this senseless act.
Before any rash decisions are made, let me leave you with what I believe is a rational statement and one that I have not heard from the "mainstream" media:
"We end up enforcing laws and forcing everyone to live by rules that only attempt to prevent the last thing that was done by the least controllable among us. It doesn't have to be this way. We must not give in to fear. We must empower our better judgment to create a society where violent rhetoric and imagery is frowned upon, not because it drives the unbalanced to action but because it's inherently wrong." - Jon Stewart
Ideas for the post were provided by this Huffington Post article and provided the embedded link above. The image of the Target map is from www.target.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment