Last week, in the wake of the rifle attack on a group of Republican congressmen and congressional aides by James Hodgkinson, a deranged, outspoken supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders and, as evidenced by his social media tirades, a virulent opponent of President Trump and Republicans, The New York Times published an editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” focusing on the violent turn in American politics.
The editorial, an abject attempt at historical revisionism, began by comparing the Hodgkinson shootings with the attack that targeted Democratic Congresswoman Gabby Giffords six years ago by Jared Lee Loughner, described by those who knew him as apolitical or, if anything, slightly left of center.
And therein lies a cautionary tale that should cause skeptics of Mr. Trump’s “fake news” mantra to seriously reconsider.
Indeed, the Times was forced to fundamentally rework the first version of the editorial, which appeared on June 15, after some furious pushback over its transparent effort to misleadingly underscore alleged conservative Republican links with the rise in violence while downplaying any possible liberal Democratic links.
The two key paragraphs as they appeared in the original version are quoted immediately below, with the revised version appearing thereafter. Italics in the original denote what was deleted in the revised version; italics in the revised version denote what was edited or added.
Original Editorial:
Was [last week’s] attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Gifford and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.
Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency they ask of the right.
Revised Editorial:
Was [last week’s] attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.
Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Liberals should of course be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
So in its original editorial the Times maintained that the shooting by the anti-Trump Mr. Hodgkinson was only “probably” related to the plague of political violence but “the link to political incitement was clear” in the rampage of the anti-liberal Jared Lee Loughner, in no small measure because “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Gifford and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.” In the Hodgkinson episode, however, “there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack.”
But in the revised version, the Times, having come under heavy criticism for the assumptions in the original editorial, pointedly omitted all references to any relationship between the Gifford shooting and Mr. Loughner’s politics or Republican incitement.
Thus, the original’s reference to the Sarah Palin map as having put “Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs” was revised to read that the map showed not the candidates themselves but “targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.”
The Times also added this revealing sentence: “But in that case [the Giffords shooting], no connection to the shooting was ever established.”
The revisions to the editorial apparently were made grudgingly. Certainly they were done piecemeal. The editorial first appeared in print the morning of June 15. Later that day, the Times ran a “Correction” notice online that read:
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.
The next day the Times carried yet another “Correction” online:
An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers.
The lesson here is to be wary of so-called facts offered up by proven partisans and hacks. The stakes, especially these days, are too consequential.