Agitprop

The New York Times editorial board the following morning ..[of the baseball shooting]...gave a nod toward civility by acknowledging that conservatives and "right-wing media" were right "to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals." But then they tainted their momentary lapse into fairness with a false debating point that Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Rep. Gabby Giffords, was more incited by Sarah Palin than James Hodgkinson had been by his diet of political extremism. Actually, there is no evidence that the mentally ill Loughner had ever been influenced by Palin's "target map" of districts, and by recycling this bit of left-wing agitprop, The New York Times contributes to the very extremism it is purporting to condemn. (Charen)


Charen had another point: Shaun King, a New York Daily News columnist, also managed to miss the point when he objected that "if 20 Republican congressmen were shot and killed, it would not improve the chances of us having a better health care system. It's nonsensical."
This is a common theme. People often condemn "senseless violence," as if there were some forms of violence that make sense."


What is of most interest here is this:  Most goofy opinions are uneducated and/or uninformed. What is so horrible about the current Press, and their accomplices hidden in the government, is that these people know--know--what they are saying is untrue. In this respect, they are more like the lynch mob agitator than the mob.