As he does often, Mark Steyn manages to catch a fair bit of what I have been thinking under the surface - this time about how the attacks in Boston seemed to be covered by large portions of the 4th Estate.The last bit summarizes something we all need to ponder when we decide where we get out news, and how we let others inform our opinion - and to think deeper why the decision makers make some things news, and not others.
It’s very weird to live in a society where mass death is important insofar as it serves the political needs of the dominant ideology. A white male loner killing white kindergartners in Connecticut is news; a black doctor butchering black babies in Pennsylvania is not. When the manhunt in Boston began, I received a bunch of e-mails sneering I was gagging for it to be the Muzzies just as hungrily as lefties were for it to be an NRA guy, a Tea Partier, a Sarah Palin donor. But, actually, I wasn’t. On Monday, it didn’t feel Islamic: a small death toll at a popular event but not one with the resonance and iconic quality the big-time jihadists like — like 9/11, the embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole. After all, if the jihad crowd wanted to blow up a few people here and there IRA-style they could have been doing it all this last decade.
On the other hand, it didn’t feel like one of those freelance bumblers — the Pantybomber, the Times Square Bomber — finally got lucky. It feels like something in between, something new. Is it just a one-off? Or a strategic evolution?
UPDATE: Boston is bringing both sides together at least.
From the left; Bill Maher:
From the right; Senator Scott (R-SC).
