What are the odds that ABC would mis-identify the Aurora gunman as a Tea Partier?

What are the odds that ABC would mis-identify the Aurora gunman as a Muslim?

Well, naturally, the former happened.

It's weird how these mistakes always break that way.

The Tea Party guy fingered by ABC has had to shut off his phone because of the threats he's received.

Way to demonstrate professionalism, ABC.

The Anchoress provides some must-read observations:

How overly-enthralled we are becoming to our ideological tribes? Enough, perhaps, to wonder if our too-passionate engagement with ideas is poisoning our communal well, and robbing us of our humanity. At a moment when we should be united as a people responding to evil in our midst — and a mass murder is not a “tragedy”, it is evil on legs — it’s disheartening to realize that while the dead were not yet cold, the injured were still dying or being treated, the people who are charged with the public trust of telling the nation its stories, (and to do it factually, without passion or prejudice) were so quick to abandon that charge with a smiling possibility that political hay could be made.

On ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Friday morning, in a segment with host George Stephanopoulos, Ross said James Holmes, the man who allegedly murdered 12 people in the Aurora movie theater, appeared to be a member of the tea party movement based on information from Facebook, which Stephanopoulos said “might be significant.”

ABC News has since apologized for that. Some are calling for Brian Ross to be fired. I’m not sure about that; on one hand, he was likely only repeating what some producer told him. On the other, he’s an experienced journalist and he should have, perhaps, had the common sense, discretion and maturity to both wait for confirmation and — here’s a crazy idea — consider whether it was the moment to inject politics into the story, in any case.

And:

ABC News’ error has revealed to us, though, something of how the press operates in the 21st Century: violence and evil occur; people are dying; “quick, go check the registration rolls of political opponents and see if there is any way we can associate this shooter with them…”

We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” Lincoln’s Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.

The expression, the smile, on Brian Ross’ face said it all. Enthrallment to ideological passions rules the day for the press, and it appears to be toxic.

Why is there so much coverage on Leah Libresco's conversion from atheism to Catholicism?

Obviously, for the popular media, this kind of thing goes against the narrative, which just shows how insular the media really is. Libresco's conversion is not unique, nor is it the first time that a well known atheist blogger quit Team Atheist and signed up with Team Catholic. For that matter, there is a regular conveyor belt that takes atheists from Plato to Aristotle to Aquinas to Catholicism. See Mortimer Adler, J. Budziszewski and a host of bloggers.

The Anchoress writes about the media coverage:

Why so much coverage on Leah? Perhaps the answer is this: Leah’s conversion goes against all of the prevailing narratives that dominate secularist thinking. Religion — or at least religion that goes beyond affirming oneself and actually costs something of one — is the “opiate of the masses” suited only to “bitter clingers” and intellectually-dim peasants (except it isn’t and never was); Leah is a brainy, sophisticated Yalie who is neither bitter, clingy nor dim. Catholicism “hates women” (except it doesn’t and never did) and Leah is a strongly self-possessed, forward-thinking woman. Catholicism “hates homosexual persons” (except it doesn’t and never has although a new apostolic letter might help make that clear) and Leah identifies as bi-sexual.

Wait a second…hold on, I think I’ve got it! Really smart…female…bi-sexual-identifying. Holy smokes! Leah Libresco has pulled off a narrative-busting Trifecta! She’s a secularist thoroughbred who has nevertheless won the Triple Crown of Cultural Incongruity!

No wonder the press is so interested in Leah Libresco. What a thoroughly odd puzzle she must be, to them. And if she had to become a Christian, why not at least an Episcopalian, which is and always has been, the acceptable church of the elite? Why must she mess with narratives and perceptions like some kind of Plato-mystic canoodler?

About that story where Newt Gingrich served divorce papers on his wife while she was in the hospital...

...totally bogus, according to his daughter.

Here's the truth:

It was the spring of 1980.


I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.

As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on.

We are not a perfect family, but we are knit together through common bonds, commitment and love.

My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both.

My sister and I feel that it is time to move on, close the book on this event and focus on building a great future. We will not answer additional questions or make additional comments regarding this meaningless incident, which occurred more than three decades ago.

As I said, my mother is a private person. She will not give media interviews. She deserves respect and should be allowed to live in peace.

I don't know if the bogus story had much effect on how I viewed Newt, although in the back of my mind I guess there was a sense of him as being...how do you say it?... scum.

The Anchoress is reconsidering Newt:

If I have believed a lie — and it seems I may have — then I have been unfair to Gingrich. I didn’t like him much, back when I was a Democrat, so it was easy for me to believe the worst.

Now, in fairness I’ll have to take a second look at Newt. With new eyes.

I suspect I won’t be the only one doing so.

This election couldn’t get more interesting for its twists and turns.

 
Via Brutally Honest.