Presidential Candidate Assassination Attempts in the Age of Media-Induced Hate

Does the Media Have a Role in the Two Trump Assassination Attempts?

Often, when a mass shooting occurs, it turns into a morbid partisan game. The game is called “Who Indoctrinated the Shooter”? It’s a demented game that tries to assign which party or media outlet caused the shooter to murder. Partisan affiliation will be placed on the shooter, based on even the most tangential evidence. Without a drop of irony, the two parties will vacillate between the two narratives: “The other party caused the shooter” and “We can’t hold a political party responsible for a shooter’.” Which statement is made is dependent on the party doing the accusing and the one being accused.

It’s the ultimate hypocrisy and an insult to the deceased and their families. It’s a strategy that turns murder victims into political ping-pong balls. It shows a political system with no regard for life’s sanctity.

For example, after the manifesto was retrieved from a mass shooter in Buffalo, it was revealed that he claimed to be “radicalized by a racist conspiracy theory.” MSNBC, CNN, and NPR, never missing the chance to fan the flames, immediately blamed it on Tucker Carlson. The truth is that there was no evidence presented that the shooter had watched or was inspired by Carlson.

When a shooter in Alexandria, Virginia, shot four Republican senators while they were playing softball, it was immediately noted by conservative media outlets that he had been an avid fan of Rachel Maddow. It’s an unfortunate game that has no winners, only losers.

It’s not a surprise, therefore, that the accusations are flying over the Trump assassination attempts. The Democratic media is blaming Trump’s dialog for the assassination attempts, and the conservative media is calling out the liberal media for their consistent attacks on Trump.

There is much truth to the Democratic claims that Trump says inciteful things that people can find utterly contemptible. Trump is a belligerent demagogue whose harsh dialog appeals to the rancor that many Americans feel toward their country, specifically the two-party system that has betrayed them.

But the amount of hate poured on Trump from the Liberal media has been astonishing. And it’s not just the quantity of the hate; it’s the severity that is concerning. In many ways, the media “broke” when Trump began his campaign in 2016. No attack is now too severe or uncivil. Anything and everything is on the table. A disproportionate number of questions asked of Democratic leaders and media heads end with deflections to anti-Trump tirades. It’s even OK to threaten violence against him (see video below). A party without a platform, except not being the other candidate, has little choice but to run on a campaign of hate.

Can the media be held responsible for the actions of shooters? It depends on the definition of “responsible.” Can they be criminally held accountable? Unlikely. How about morally or ethically responsible? That’s a different issue. We can say with certainty that the media has created an environment of hate to a previously unseen level. Truthfulness, credibility, reliability, and civility all went out the door. The actual victims are the citizens of the United States who are subjected to a constant flow of gaslighting and strategically placed propaganda. When it comes to influencing people’s thoughts, no institution is more powerful than the media. A national media is more powerful than the words of any candidate.

The real question is: does the media create conditions for such actions? Undoubtedly, the answer is yes. The media uses tactics to deceive and manipulate the public, including gaslighting them into submission by raising fear levels. Comparison to Hitler and Soviet Style communism will poke a nerve in people in the United States. That’s the intent; that’s why both parties have resorted to such tactics. Frequent watching of cable news is destined to amplify hatred in people.

There is an expression, “You can’t sell drugs to an unwilling person.” Perhaps if Americans felt more secure monetarily, had better healthcare, and didn’t have imperialist wars draining the economy, fewer would be buying the drug of hate that the media sells. It is the nature of human belief systems to unquestionably defend one’s own party and look to place blame on the other. After all, it’s easier to blame the rotten apple than the rotten barrel, i.e., it is easier to blame the other party than the whole country. People can maintain a glimmer of hope when they believe their party can fix the nation’s problems. It’s a false hope that comes crashing down every time.

Exaggerated, irrational thoughts and actions follow. From my observations living here in the US, people have ended or have strained friendships over voting choices. These are not arguments of passion; they are arguments of hate and intolerance.

Considering how central the media is to Americans’ information consumption, words can be dangerous. Some feast on nothing but the mainstream narrative. They develop their entire understanding of a complex political-economic system based on corporate media. With only one narrative presented by polished propagandists and without any honest debate, many are not armed with the tools to tell fact from fiction. They live in the narrative presented to them.

Add an already troubled person to the mix, and words can get turned into violence, like attempted assassinations.

Nobody is sure of the motives of the first shooter (Thomas Matthews Crooks). Still, as always, it was immediately noted that he was a registered Republican but indicated that he had donated to the Democrats. Much like the response to the mass shooters, the bigger question is never asked: What is wrong with a society in which we have to turn the blame on political parties rather than look at the bigger picture of how the entire system functions?

The irony is that the parties have more commonality than is recognized in the US media. The media portrays the two parties as opposites with no bridgeable gap, as eternal enemies. But they are far from that. This manufactured “differential” serves the state, i.e., the political establishment. This line in the sand has dire consequences for its citizens.

Both parties serve the same economic system despite the Democrats trying to convince us otherwise. They both support war, regardless of the dangers it poses. Both support Wall Street and large corporations. The Democrats were up in arms about Trump’s tariffs on China but have continued them. They screamed about Trump’s “kids in cages,” but that has not changed. They feigned disgust over Trump increasing the nuclear arsenal, which Obama had already done, and the Biden Administration continues to do.

The second shooter, Ryan Routh, from what is known so far, was a fanatic about Ukraine. He had gone to Ukraine to volunteer but was sent back. Considering the non-stop, obsessive anti-Putin, anti-Russian reporting from both liberal and conservative mainstream outlets, it is plausible that it affected him. He saw Trump as a candidate who would try to bring peace. Also, as

Glenn Greenwald

noted in his September 15th tweet, Routh was rehashing the liberal media’s favorite line: “Democracy is on the ballot.”

“Those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil,” said historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt. Her writings grasped what went wrong in 19th-century Europe, leading to World War II. Blaming minorities for the country’s failures, imperialism, cracking down on their own populaces by squashing dissent, and an inability to look after the welfare of their citizens. These conditions have existed in the US for some time and continue to worsen, regardless of who the president is. They will not change in this election. Acting on hate towards the “other” party is not standing up to our system. It makes us more subservient and conformist.