Americans Reject Role of Politics in Shooting, CBS's Couric Still Frets Over Rhetoric
Introducing a segment on Tuesday's CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric acknowledged the latest CBS News poll showing that 57% of Americans do not believe heated political rhetoric had anything to do with the Tucson shooting. Even so, she added: "Just the same, nearly half say the discourse has become less civil than it was ten years ago."
The poll numbers that appeared on screen showed that 49% of respondents thought political discourse was less civil than a decade ago, while 33% saw the civility level about the same, and 15 % thought the current political climate was more civil. In other words, Americans are evenly divided over the question, with 48% seeing no decline in civility over the last ten years.
To her credit, Couric spoke with former Republican Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who cautioned: "I don't think we want to get to a point where we're deterring or chilling free speech or passion or enthusiasm or the kinds of things that fuel grassroots politics activities." Couric offered: "Or principles." He continued: "Or principles. So that's not what I'm saying. I want to be clear about that. I'm just saying you can express yourself firmly and passionately and with conviction but you don't need to do in the a way that demeans others."
However, she then turned to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, who "agrees it's time to lower the volume." Dionne admitted that the current political tone probably played no role in the shooting, but claimed that did not matter: "I don't think we need to draw any straight line between the discourse and what happened in Arizona to have second thoughts about the discourse. We've had a lot of violent talk in our politics....whether or not the discourse had anything to do with causing this, this ought to make us want to change our way of talking anyway."
Couric seemed to accept that sentiment as she wondered: "Will it, though? Is this really going to change anything?" Dionne replied: "It may change us. I hope it changes us."
Earlier in the broadcast, correspondent Ben Tracy had reported on the lack of any political motivation in the attack: "Investigators believe his alleged attack on Congresswoman Giffords, a moderate Democrat, was not partisan but a way to lash out at government in general. Records show Loughner is a registered independent. He voted in 2006 and 2008 but not in the most recent midterm elections, in which Giffords won a third term."
Here is a full transcript of Couric's January 11 segment:
6:41PM ET
KATIE COURIC: So was the suspect's violent behavior somehow stoked by today's political climate? Most Americans say no. A CBS news poll out tonight shows 57% say that had nothing to do with the Arizona shootings. Just the same, nearly half say the discourse has become less civil than it was ten years ago.
[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: Americans Debating the Issues Compared to 10 Years Ago; More Civil: 15%, Less Civil: 49%, About the Same: 33%]
I spoke with former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a potential Republican presidential contender, about the role political figures play in all this.
TIM PAWLENTY: There's a term for that in politics. They say go out and give them the red meat. And so it's – think of that imagery of dangling raw meat in front of, you know, the predator. But all of us, in the case of the politicians, I don't think we want to get to a point where we're deterring or chilling free speech or passion or enthusiasm or the kinds of things that fuel grassroots politics activities.
COURIC: Or principles.
PAWLENTY: Or principles. So that's not what I'm saying. I want to be clear about that. I'm just saying you can express yourself firmly and passionately and with conviction but you don't need to do in the a way that demeans others.
COURIC: Political columnist E.J. Dionne agrees it's time to lower the volume.
E.J. DIONNE: I don't think we need to draw any straight line between the discourse and what happened in Arizona to have second thoughts about the discourse. We've had a lot of violent talk in our politics and if nothing else, this event should tell us that it's not so much that those words have consequences – although perhaps they do – violence is not part of democracy, violence is antithetical to democracy. And so whether or not the discourse had anything to do with causing this, this ought to make us want to change our way of talking anyway.
COURIC: Will it, though? Is this really going to change anything?
DIONNE: It may change us. I hope it changes us. It's 50 years ago next week that President Kennedy gave that great inaugural address in which he said 'civility is not a sign of weakness.' And I always loved that sign because civility sounds like such a weak virtue but it doesn't mean you don't have strong opinions, it doesn't mean you don't argue, it doesn't mean you compromise on everything. What it means is you don't hate the person you disagree with. You don't think the person you disagree with is stupid. You certainly don't threaten violence against the person you disagree with. That's what we need to rediscover, civility defined like that.
— Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Tell the folks at MSNBC
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 3:19pm.
Dionne: You certainly don't threaten violence against the person you disagree with.
Tell that to the folks at MSNBC or NPR, E.J.
And Katie Frets
Submitted by JustAl on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 3:23pm.
about why no body frets about her fretting.
How else do I predict misfortune?
Submitted by JakeMo on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 3:24pm.
If I think liberal spending habits will ultimately result in the destruction of our republic, I don't know any other way to say that than to use a word that connotates "destruction."
It seems that liberals want to confine language such that only positive descriptions can be used to describe the results of their actions.
I suspect Katie frets more...
Submitted by KyWriter on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 3:35pm.
...about how much her salary will be chopped in the ongoing negotiations with CBS brass. If she is paid what she is worth, she'd qualify for food stamps.
Nonsense in its purest form
Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 3:53pm.
"And so whether or not the discourse had anything to do with causing this, this ought to make us want to change our way of talking anyway."
I've been scratching my head over this one. Dionne is saying that the shooting should prompt us to talk about the tone of civil discourse, even though the shooting had nothing to do with it. Well, that makes no sense. If the reason we're talking about tone is because it might encourage violence, but that this most recent violence had nothing to do with tone, then the second clause disproves the first.
If you're worried that Palin's website with crosshairs might have prompted this murder, stop worrying. According to reports, the murderer had already developed his hatred for Congresswoman Giffords long before Palin was a national figure. So, if the crosshair website had nothing to do with the violence, why suggest that we should consider it influential anyway?
Just a few days ago, some study debunked the myth that vaccines had anything to do with autism. Dionne's advice is equivalent to saying that even though the connection was debunked, let's discuss it anyway, as if the debunking never happened. By the same token, if there's no evidence of a connection between violence and tone, we should we conduct the conversation as if we thought there was?
I've been scratching my head
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:06pm.
I've been scratching my head over this one. Dionne is saying that the shooting should prompt us to talk about the tone of civil discourse, even though the shooting had nothing to do with it. Well, that makes no sense.
It makes lots of sense if your aim is to stop conservatives from speaking out in order to further your own partisan aims.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Ironically, in the eyes of
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:34pm.
Ironically, in the eyes of the American people anyway, by the left wing zealot politician"s shameful attempt to snuff out the opposing party, they've actually killed themselves.......politically.
Barack_Must_Go.....
And Dionne says: "...This
Submitted by Cajun on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:53pm.
And Dionne says: "...This ought to make us want to change our way of talking anyway.".
I ask...WHY!?
The first amendment ot the Bill of Rights declares Americans freedom of speech. Do ANY of these people know anything about politics of the 18th and 19th century? Where do they think the term 'dirty politics' came from? Funny, our fundamental right to express ourselves, poorly or not, was never in question? Why now? Poor-looser syndrome...as usual?
But let's say the biased critique - and it is so VERY biased when one takes the most vile and reprehensible 'vitriole' and 'rhetoric' from the left-leaning pundits that even my creative writing professor would be envious of and ignores its ramifications - is taken to heart. What are the alternatives to freedom of expression (not like putting a crucifix upside down in a jar or urine, funding it with tax $$ and calling it art)? What forms of censureship can we expect?
We could start with outlawing certain sayings and cliches that might induce criminally violent behavior like:
Pull out the big guns, Bite the bullet, come out guns blazing, straight shooter, with both barrels, have you in my sites, loos cannon, waiting for the hammer to fall, like shooting fish in a barrel (or ducks on a pond), lock-n-load, shoot from the hip.
But hey! Don't shoot! I'm just the messenger. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot. I'm just sayin....
I fret over the rhetoric, also
Submitted by TheHistorian on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:39pm.
The fact that the rhetoric was not shut down by the President is another failure in leadership. It was HIS party, HIS kooks, and people of HIS race (e.g. James Clyburn) that were running their mouth with no fact, and in fact CONTINUE to do so. Paul Krugman (a staunch supporter of the President's is an example of someone who could not keep his lip buttoned, and had to blame Sarah Palin).
He sure seemed able to run his mouth when it was a friend of his who was crossways of the Cambridge police. He didn't even need facts to say that the police "acted stupidly". Well, the facts of this case are that a loony lefty (on Moulitas's web site) leveled the charge, and the left tried to make it stick. A President who was worth spit would have been out to stop this; I guess Obama didn't think it more important than his basketball, or his golf, or whatever he was doing this weekend to be interrupted by handling this trivial matter of the loony left wandering off from the reservation.
Dennis Prager
poll numbers
Submitted by TerryWest on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:20pm.
"The poll numbers that appeared on screen showed that 49% of respondents thought political discourse was less civil than a decade ago" If the poll asked if I thought the main stream media and political left's political discourse and rhetoric was less civil then a decade ago Id have to say yes, As for the response to that from American's and our ability to bring in or access other information (often a more accurate and fair picture) I'd say its about time.