Mark Levin Just Doesn't Get It

I wrote just a few days ago about how the two political parties shouldn't be using the Arizona shooting as a means to score political points. I still stand by that, but another thing I've noticed in recent days that has been irritating me is how it seems everyone whom is said to have potentially influenced the nation (or certain portions of it) to become angry are going the "1st Amendment" or "free speech" route and then re-direct the blame elsewhere.

Now, I don't think we can blame the hate-filled rhetoric of some politicians, radio personalities and talking heads for the crimes instigated in Tucson, Arizona last week. We can't blame those that are not responsible for the acts themselves. We can't scapegoat them for crimes they didn't commit. However, one also can't say these same individuals are not riling up anger in their base, dividing the nation further on a regular basis, being hypocritical and then attempting to play the free speech card when someone acts upon their anger at the government.

This past week, MSNBC host, Chris Matthews stated, "Every time you listen to them, they are furious. Furious at the left. With anger that just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial they are just in some rage every night with some ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk and it never changes."

Conservative radio talk show host, Mark Levin responded with these words, "I challenge Chris Matthews, I'll put $100,000 on the table, to find any example where Sarah Palin has promoted the murder of anybody." He then threatened to sue anyone at MSNBC whom makes a specific allegation against him.

Levin is completely missing the point. Does he really think anyone in their right mind would believe that a talk show host of any persuasion would encourage the murder of a person? Chris Matthews wasn't suggesting that and Levin's angry response tells me that perhaps he's feeling a tad guilty himself. Matthews talked about the anger in which Levin and his ilk speak on a consistent basis and with the building anger in Levin's voice and quite possibly in the minds of his listeners, it could result in some unwanted consequences. The problem with Levin and the like is they want to be seen as entertainers. They want to be seen as rock stars whom may write controversial lyrics or authors whom write about touchy subjects or an artist unafraid to portray sex and nudity in an obscure, yet disturbing light. They want to believe that like these other entertainers, whom earn their money by selling their music, paintings, books and other merchandise and are appreciated for their artistic endeavors, these radio and television personalities will be seen in a similar light, which would negate them from any responsibility if someone were to take their anger at government, in which the talking heads harped about for an entire show, and acted upon it. So, like artists attempting to use shock to sell their product, many of these personalities are doing likewise. However, what these personalities seem to forget is the difference between the real and the fantasy world. Some video games may be ultra-violent, but even when one dies in a game, the system will eventually be turned off and the gamer can return to their life. The same is true of some movies, of music, of literature, etc. Many of these mediums require a user to utilize their imagination in certain ways, to transition from reality to fantasy. These radio and television personalities aren't representing the fantasy world. They're representing reality. They're talking about real world issues taking place, so the anger that is presented on a radio talk show and how it can potentially influence a person is far different from anger showcased in a movie or song and how that can potentially influence the same individual. In a violent song, what are the listeners supposed to be angry about? Do the songs specifically single out individuals to harm? Do they continually repeat the same rhetoric, about whom to be angry with, whom to fight, whom to kill or conquer? After hearing these songs, do individuals then get so riled, they run out their front doors and decide to wreak some havoc on the city? This is fantasy. The music is real, but it is derived from a person's imagination. However, when the Mark Levin's of the world or the Sarah Palin's of the world make mention of specific politicians whom we should be angry with and while not encouraging the murder of these very politicians, they use angry and violent rhetoric at their expense, we are talking about real people with real families with real consequences. Gabrielle Giffords is not a make-believe character in a novel or a video game. She is a real person whom was treated as fictional by Sarah Palin and others. This image gives some listeners a false sense of action without consequence, which is very dangerous. While we can't state point blank that Mark Levin is guilty of murder in the first degree due to his angry talking points, we can say that he is providing a very negative influence and should tone things down a bit, so that people don't mistake reality with fantasy and with that, confuse violent rhetoric with violent action.