The Media’s Selective Blindness on Political Violence

By /
Listen to this article now
POWERED BY DIGITAL PIZZA AUDIO
00:00 06:02
Reading Time: 5 minutes
When it comes to political violence, America has endured more than its share of tragedy. But what has become just as damaging is the way our media class spins these tragedies into narratives — selectively, opportunistically, and always with an eye toward blaming one side of the aisle. Take the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. That monstrous act of terror killed 168 Americans, including 19 children. Timothy McVeigh carried out the attack out of his own twisted, anti-government extremism. Yet if you opened the New York Times or tuned into ABC News in those days, you’d have thought Rush Limbaugh was the one who parked the Ryder truck outside the Murrah Building. Reporters and columnists openly suggested that conservative talk radio had “poisoned the atmosphere” and radicalized McVeigh. There was no real evidence — only a hunger to weaponize the moment against a popular conservative voice. Fast forward to 2011. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona by a disturbed loner named Jared Lee Loughner. He wasn’t motivated by the GOP. He wasn’t a Tea Partier. He wasn’t even a Rush listener. His writings showed paranoia and personal grievances, not party politics. But within hours, the press corps had decided the real villain was Sarah Palin. Why? Because her PAC had once published a map with crosshairs over swing districts, including Giffords’s. “Toxic rhetoric” became the phrase of the week. Editorial boards thundered about the “climate of hate” Palin had created. The New York Times later had to issue corrections after falsely blaming her again years later. The message was clear: when the perpetrator isn’t clearly political, the media will find a way to make it political — and always to the detriment of Republicans. But here’s the part they don’t want you to notice: when violence actually does carry an ideological target, and the victims are conservatives, Republicans, or even Donald Trump himself, suddenly the media goes silent. Look at just the past few years. • June 2017: A Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer opened fire at a Republican congressional baseball practice, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise and wounding others. CNN and MSNBC treated it as a one-day story. The shooter’s politics were barely mentioned after the initial reports. • July 2024: Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania. Despite the obvious target, the FBI and much of the press went out of their way to insist that no clear ideological motive had been established. If a deranged man had aimed at Joe Biden, do you think they’d hedge the same way? • September 2025: Tyler Robinson is accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk, reportedly leaving messages about silencing Kirk’s “hatred.” The Washington Post acknowledged the motive but buried it deep in the coverage. • September 2025: Aníbal Hernández Santana allegedly opened fire at a Sacramento news station, with anti-Trump writings and notes in his car. The New York Post covered it; legacy outlets moved on quickly. • September 24, 2025: Joshua Jahn scaled a rooftop in Dallas and opened fire on an ICE field office, killing one detainee and critically wounding others. On his ammunition casings, he scrawled the words “ANTI-ICE.” The FBI admitted this was a targeted attack, and yet you won’t find wall-to-wall commentary on how anti-Republican, anti-law-enforcement rhetoric from Democrats may have emboldened him. Instead, the focus is on his “mental health.” This selective blindness is striking. When the target is on the Right, the story is minimized, downplayed, or treated as a freak aberration. When the target is on the Left, the blame machine cranks into overdrive, and Republican rhetoric is immediately hauled into the dock. Think about it: Rush Limbaugh was smeared for Oklahoma City. Sarah Palin was smeared for Giffords. But has anyone on CNN asked whether years of “Trump is Hitler,” “Republicans are fascists,” or “ICE is a terrorist organization” contributed to today’s attacks? Of course not. The very people who lecture us about “dangerous rhetoric” refuse to apply their own standards evenly. It’s not just hypocrisy. It’s dangerous. Because the Left’s rhetoric isn’t harmless. When public figures compare Trump supporters to Nazis or call Republicans “a threat to democracy,” they aren’t just scoring points on cable news. They are stoking hatred. And as we’ve seen, in unstable minds, hatred can become violence. The media’s selective outrage sends another message too: that some targets matter more than others. The lives of conservatives, ICE officers, and Republican lawmakers don’t generate the same sustained outrage. Their blood doesn’t sell newspapers the way a narrative about “right-wing extremism” does. I’m not suggesting we play the same game. Political violence is wrong, period. Republicans should say so consistently — and we do. But it is long past time to call out the double standard. If we are going to condemn rhetoric that “inspires violence,” then let’s apply that principle equally. Let’s talk about the climate created when a president like Joe Biden brands half the country as “semi-fascists.” Let’s talk about the hatred stoked when MSNBC pundits say Republicans want to end democracy. The Left was quick to demand accountability from conservatives after Oklahoma City and Tucson. They were wrong in their accusations then, but at least they admitted that rhetoric mattered. Today, when it’s their side pushing rhetoric and the violence lands on Republicans, they suddenly claim it’s all just coincidence. The truth is simple: you can’t have it both ways. Either rhetoric matters — and the anti-Trump, anti-ICE, anti-Republican rhetoric of the last decade has blood on its hands — or rhetoric doesn’t matter, in which case the smears against Limbaugh, Palin, and countless others were lies. Americans see the double standard. They know the media watchdogs only bark when the Right is the target. Until that changes, their lectures about “dangerous rhetoric” will ring hollow. Alex Luther is a contributor for Direct Line News and can be reached at Alex.Luther@mcgopclub.com

When it comes to political violence, America has endured more than its share of tragedy. But what has become just as damaging is the way our media class spins these tragedies into narratives — selectively, opportunistically, and always with an eye toward blaming one side of the aisle.

Take the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. That monstrous act of terror killed 168 Americans, including 19 children. Timothy McVeigh carried out the attack out of his own twisted, anti-government extremism. Yet if you opened the New York Times or tuned into ABC News in those days, you’d have thought Rush Limbaugh was the one who parked the Ryder truck outside the Murrah Building. Reporters and columnists openly suggested that conservative talk radio had “poisoned the atmosphere” and radicalized McVeigh. There was no real evidence — only a hunger to weaponize the moment against a popular conservative voice.

Fast forward to 2011. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona by a disturbed loner named Jared Lee Loughner. He wasn’t motivated by the GOP. He wasn’t a Tea Partier. He wasn’t even a Rush listener. His writings showed paranoia and personal grievances, not party politics. But within hours, the press corps had decided the real villain was Sarah Palin. Why? Because her PAC had once published a map with crosshairs over swing districts, including Giffords’s. “Toxic rhetoric” became the phrase of the week. Editorial boards thundered about the “climate of hate” Palin had created. The New York Times later had to issue corrections after falsely blaming her again years later.

The message was clear: when the perpetrator isn’t clearly political, the media will find a way to make it political — and always to the detriment of Republicans.

But here’s the part they don’t want you to notice: when violence actually does carry an ideological target, and the victims are conservatives, Republicans, or even Donald Trump himself, suddenly the media goes silent.

Look at just the past few years.

  • June 2017: A Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer opened fire at a Republican congressional baseball practice, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise and wounding others. CNN and MSNBC treated it as a one-day story. The shooter’s politics were barely mentioned after the initial reports.
  • July 2024: Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania. Despite the obvious target, the FBI and much of the press went out of their way to insist that no clear ideological motive had been established. If a deranged man had aimed at Joe Biden, do you think they’d hedge the same way?
  • September 2025: Tyler Robinson is accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk, reportedly leaving messages about silencing Kirk’s “hatred.” The Washington Post acknowledged the motive but buried it deep in the coverage.
  • September 2025: Aníbal Hernández Santana allegedly opened fire at a Sacramento news station, with anti-Trump writings and notes in his car. The New York Post covered it; legacy outlets moved on quickly.
  • September 24, 2025: Joshua Jahn scaled a rooftop in Dallas and opened fire on an ICE field office, killing one detainee and critically wounding others. On his ammunition casings, he scrawled the words “ANTI-ICE.” The FBI admitted this was a targeted attack, and yet you won’t find wall-to-wall commentary on how anti-Republican, anti-law-enforcement rhetoric from Democrats may have emboldened him. Instead, the focus is on his “mental health.”

This selective blindness is striking. When the target is on the Right, the story is minimized, downplayed, or treated as a freak aberration. When the target is on the Left, the blame machine cranks into overdrive, and Republican rhetoric is immediately hauled into the dock.

Think about it: Rush Limbaugh was smeared for Oklahoma City. Sarah Palin was smeared for Giffords. But has anyone on CNN asked whether years of “Trump is Hitler,” “Republicans are fascists,” or “ICE is a terrorist organization” contributed to today’s attacks? Of course not. The very people who lecture us about “dangerous rhetoric” refuse to apply their own standards evenly.

It’s not just hypocrisy. It’s dangerous. Because the Left’s rhetoric isn’t harmless. When public figures compare Trump supporters to Nazis or call Republicans “a threat to democracy,” they aren’t just scoring points on cable news. They are stoking hatred. And as we’ve seen, in unstable minds, hatred can become violence.

The media’s selective outrage sends another message too: that some targets matter more than others. The lives of conservatives, ICE officers, and Republican lawmakers don’t generate the same sustained outrage. Their blood doesn’t sell newspapers the way a narrative about “right-wing extremism” does.

I’m not suggesting we play the same game. Political violence is wrong, period. Republicans should say so consistently — and we do. But it is long past time to call out the double standard. If we are going to condemn rhetoric that “inspires violence,” then let’s apply that principle equally. Let’s talk about the climate created when a president like Joe Biden brands half the country as “semi-fascists.” Let’s talk about the hatred stoked when MSNBC pundits say Republicans want to end democracy.

The Left was quick to demand accountability from conservatives after Oklahoma City and Tucson. They were wrong in their accusations then, but at least they admitted that rhetoric mattered. Today, when it’s their side pushing rhetoric and the violence lands on Republicans, they suddenly claim it’s all just coincidence.

The truth is simple: you can’t have it both ways. Either rhetoric matters — and the anti-Trump, anti-ICE, anti-Republican rhetoric of the last decade has blood on its hands — or rhetoric doesn’t matter, in which case the smears against Limbaugh, Palin, and countless others were lies.

Americans see the double standard. They know the media watchdogs only bark when the Right is the target. Until that changes, their lectures about “dangerous rhetoric” will ring hollow.

Alex Luther is a contributor for Direct Line News and can be reached at Alex.Luther@mcgopclub.com

About The Author

Alex Luther

See author's posts

Scroll to Top