Advertising Violence

(Billboard in Tucson, Arizona. Image found on Deus Ex Malcontent.)

"...when you saturate the air with hate you cannot control who breathes it in," Dan from Pruning Shears explains in his post about the Arizona massacre. Take a few minutes to read his post, but I'll summarize his insightful points about advertising as best I can.

Advertising works. That's why Coke, Pepsi, Ford, Apple and everybody else advertises when they have a product to sell. In fact, they spend billions of dollars on advertising, often not even knowing which ad "sticks" and which is wasted. But it is a fact that increased spending on advertising will lead to increased sales of the product advertised.

And so when you look at the political climate in Arizona, the violent imagery used by Sarah Palin, the "Second Amendment remedies" suggested by Sharron Angle, the violent fantasies presented by Glenn Beck, and the Arizona Tea Party favorite who urged followers "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"... it becomes bloody obvious these people are advertising violence.

And it works -- even if you can't draw a straight line from any one advertisement to the reprehensible act -- it works.

So the "alleged" shooter, Jared Loughner is mentally ill? I have no doubt that he is. But that doesn't make the crime an "isolated incident." David Neweirt proposed there is a level of moral and ethical culpability when violent speech has the following features:

• It is factually false, or so grossly distorted and misleading as to constitute functional falsity.

• It holds certain targeted individuals or groups of people up for vilification and demonization.

• It smears them with false or misleading information that depicts them in a degraded light.

• It depicts them as either emblematic, or the actual source, of a significant problem or a major threat.

• It leads its audience to conclude that the solution to the problem manifested by these people is their elimination.

Crazy talk incites crazy people.

I get the feeling that some people honestly believe that if we never find a direct connection between Loughner and any pundit's violent rhetoric, then somehow violent speech is vindicated, acceptable and righteous. It is not.

Why?

"The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons — your Big Guns — to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win." — Sarah Palin, March 2010.

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona." — Sarah Palin, January 8, 2011.

Bullshit, Sarah. You put U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in your cross-hairs last year (don't try to hide it), and now she's been shot, point blank in the head, and although Giffords made it through surgery, a nine year old child, an Arizona Chief Judge, and four others are dead.

The 22 year-old shooter, Jared Loughner, has a recent history of paranoid rants regarding mind control, currency, the government, the Constitution, and grammar. I'll take a wild guess that he's a paranoid schizophrenic -- the exact type Palin and Sharron Angle were trying to incite with talk of "Second Amendment remedies." To me, it doesn't really matter whether Loughner was a follower of either of those vile women -- he delivered the result they wanted -- the result the "tea party" wanted.

And by the way, isn't Arizona one of those states where people can carry guns almost anywhere? Why did bystanders have to tackle Loughner to the ground? Gee, weren't they all supposed to be armed and ready to shoot him down? I guess it never works out that way in reality...

But in reality, sustained violent rhetoric always has a body count.