O'Reilly and Hasselbeck agreed that Clarence Dupnik--the local sheriff investigating the shooting who has gained attention by criticizing the right-wing media for, in his view, creating a politically toxic climate--is mistaken and even, as Hasselbeck put it, dangerous. Talking about whether a certain political or cultural atmosphere influenced violence she said, was a way for people who carried out violence to justify their actions.
First of all, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik didn't criticize Right-wing Media. He attacked ALL media.
But we know that conservatives/right-wing media are always playing the victim card.
Does anyone think for one minute that if the shooter actually came out and specifically
said "I did it because of what I heard right-wing media and/or conservatives tell me to do"
that they would just not accuse the person of being a nut case not representative of them
anyway? Of course they would.
What is interesting to me is that, regardless of the motives of the gunman and regardless of whether
or not the subject of conservative rhetoric is involved or not, the
instincts of those that spout such
rhetoric is NOT to stand back and be reflective and take a look at themselves and what they say or do,
but instead to defend it, attack those who bring up the notion, and generally disregard that anything
they say or do could possibly be a motivating factor. Didn't I read or hear that Limbaugh said that any
criticism by democrats or left-wing people is just "a political attempt to silence his/their ideas and opinions?"
In other words--complete dismissal of any notion that what he does could create a climate of incendiary
notions, ideas, or actions. And isn't one of the standard talking point tenants of current republican
ideology to believe in "personal responsibility." Apparently, as long as you don't have to act on it.
It reminds me of this dialog that I remember, but don't know the source of:
"Sir, I resent your remarks and innuendo."
"Do you deny it?"
"No, but I resent it."