Did Fox News help to motivate the killing of three cops?

[Ivan Seeking]

After a night of drinking, followed by an early-morning argument with his mother, with whom he shared a Pittsburgh apartment, 22-year-old Richard Poplawski put on a bulletproof vest, grabbed his guns, including an AK-47 rifle, and waited for the police to respond to the domestic disturbance call his mother had placed. When two officers arrived at the front door, Poplawski shot them both in the head, and then killed another officer who tried to rescue his colleagues.

In the wake of the bloodbath, we learned that Poplawski was something of a conspiracy nut who embraced dark, radical rhetoric about America. He was convinced the government wanted to take away his guns, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. Specifically, Poplawski, as one friend described it, feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon." (FYI, there is no Obama gun ban in the works.) The same friend said the shooter feared America was "going to see the end of our times."

...Waving around a copy of his Obama Deception, Jones warned Fox News webcast viewers about Obama's "agenda" for "gun confiscation" and the new president's plan to "bring in total police-state control" to America.


...Jones also noted with excitement that Fox News' Glenn Beck had recently begun warning about the looming New World Order on his show, just like Jones had for years. "It is great!" cheered the conspiracist. (Like Jones, Beck recently warned viewers that "the Second Amendment is under fire.") Concluding the interview, Fox News' Napolitano announced "it's absolutely been a pleasure" listening to Jones' insights...

...What Fox News is now programming on a daily (unhinged) basis is unprecedented in the history of American television, especially in the form of Beck's program. Night after night, week after week, Beck rails against the president while denouncing him or his actions, alternately, as Marxist, socialist, or fascist. He felt entirely comfortable pondering whether the federal government, under the auspices of FEMA, was building concentration camps to round up Americans in order to institute totalitarian rule. (It wasn't until this week that Beck was finally able to "debunk" the FEMA conspiracy theory.) And that's when Beck wasn't gaming out bloody scenarios for the coming civil war against Obama-led tyranny. In just a few shorts months, Beck raced to the head of Fox News' militia media movement...

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200904070009

On the CNN noon broadcast today, Rick Sanchez, who IMO is not a serious journalist, is quoting a friend of Poplawski, who allegedly directly links Poplawski's killing spree to recent right-wing conspiracy rhetoric. He mentioned both Fox and hate radio. So far I don't see anything else about this, but this only ran thirty minutes ago.

 

[Flat]

Poplawski's mother said her son enlisted with the U.S. Marine Corps a few years ago but was discharged for assaulting a drill sergeant in basic training. Since his discharge, Poplawski's mother said her son had been stockpiling weapons, according to the criminal complaint

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19096134/detail.html

If it is true that he has been stockpiling wepoins for a couple of years now, then his paranoia would have started before Obama took office.

 

[BobG]

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19096134/detail.html

If it is true that he has been stockpiling wepoins for a couple of years now, then his paranoia would have started before Obama took office.

True statement, but I'm not sure what your point is. I certainly don't think Poplawski's actions in any way suggest that Glenn Beck is going to go on a shooting spree in two years. I think the overwhelming majority of mentally unstable people just say crazy things; not actually do crazy things.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19096134/detail.html

If it is true that he has been stockpiling wepoins for a couple of years now, then his paranoia would have started before Obama took office.

Yes, and Fox and hate radio have been spreading every lie conceivable, no matter how absurd, and stoking the fires as fast as they can. They should be sued out of existence.

 

[russ_watters]

From your link, Ivan:

We don't know if Poplawski tuned into watch Jones' star turn for Fox News last month.

This thread isn't just about a conspiracy theory, it is forwarding a conspiracy theory in the title.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, and Fox and hate radio have been spreading every lie conceivable...

Could that statement be any more uselessly broad/obviously impossible?

...They should be sued out of existence.

Dang, that 1st amendment is really annoying if people aren't saying what you want them to say, isn't it? If you get rid of Fox and conservative talk radio, you also have to get rid of their admittedly less popular counterparts. Liberals have a forum that conservatives don't, though: movies. There is a case before the USSC right now that could seriously hinder guys like Michael Moore (it isn't about accuracy, but political campaigning).

You're a big fan of Coast to Coast, right? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzpt - gone.

 

[russ_watters]

If it is true that he has been stockpiling wepoins for a couple of years now, then his paranoia would have started before Obama took office.

Which probably also means he's been listening to Alex Jones for longer too...

 

[drankin]

Responding to the OP: No, I've never heard Fox condone or "motivate" the killing of cops. If you have anything written, an audio clip, or video to even support the idea, that would make this thread more interesting.

 

[NBAJam100]

I don't quite think this can be pawned off on fox news... he clearly had mental problems and if it wasnt this that tipped him over the edge, it would have been something else.

This reminds me of people blaming certain music artists for acts of teen suicide.

 

[LowlyPion]

Liberals have a forum that conservatives don't, though: movies.

Not exactly true. You're forgetting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Carol" . Not that anyone would blame you. I figure the producers could forget the beating they got on it. But as a case in point it included a parody of Michael Moore that was well ... apparently not that funny.

Then there's http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071821/" . Apparently another clunker. (Rated 2.7/10 at IMDB )

The point is that the outlet of movies is available to conservatives - and the reflexive fundamentalists - it's just that its apparently not commercially viable. Undoubtedly a bitter pill.

As to Hilary: The Movie that looks to me like a silly waste of effort that is apparently a response to the artistically acclaimed Fahrenheit 9/11. Apparently the only thing The Hilary movie won was public derision. Given that it was clearly an anti-candidate motivated expression, specifically targeted for release within the McCain-Feingold windows, as opposed to a balanced depiction of the Bush election and subsequently stumbling White House years a la Fahrenheit 9/11 - a movie that achieved artistic acclaim as well as commercial profitability grossing $120 million - suggests that the Supreme Court will likely not affirm what Citizens United intends.

 

[LowlyPion]

They should be sued out of existence.

I'm not sure a clear nexus can be established between the acts of the gunman and the lopsided partisan journalism practiced by Fox News. It is a bit akin to the suits blaming consequential violence on violence in general on TV. There needs to be some personal responsibility along the line.

But that said, I would think that Fox should feel no vindication, and in fact should feel some amount of shame, for their practices and the potential consequences that they are feeding into in their pursuit to profit in promoting Roger Ailes right wing polemics.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I remember when D&D was evil and dangerous and responsible for teenagers going on killing sprees and getting involved in satanism. I wasn't born yet but I have certainly read about the congressional committee called in regards to the correlation of comic book reading and violent crime. Oh and Marilyn Manson was responsible for Columbine, I almost forgot.

 

[turbo]

Can I blame Dan Fogelberg for turning me into a soft-hearted wuss?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From your link, Ivan: This thread isn't just about a conspiracy theory, it is forwarding a conspiracy theory in the title.

A conspiracy! What conspiracy?

noun: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
noun: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
noun: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

Show me how what you cited that has anything to do with a conspiracy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure a clear nexus can be established between the acts of the gunman and the lopsided partisan journalism practiced by Fox News.

That remains to be seen. According to yesterdays CNN report, one person close to the gunman did assign responsibility to Fox.

It is a bit akin to the suits blaming consequential violence on violence in general on TV. There needs to be some personal responsibility along the line.

That same can be said for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, which is what Fox has been doing.

Just as we have personal responsibility, the media has professional responsibilities. Note also that we have a legal system to make determinations wrt resposibility. That's one reason why we have civil courts.

- a lesson learned by Sally Jessy Raphael.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I remember when D&D was evil and dangerous and responsible for teenagers going on killing sprees and getting involved in satanism. I wasn't born yet but I have certainly read about the congressional committee called in regards to the correlation of comic book reading and violent crime.

So you are equating inflammatory deceptions perpetrated on a bone-headed public with comic books?

Oh and Marilyn Manson was responsible for Columbine, I almost forgot.

Marilyn perpetuated the myth that kids at Columbine are evil fascists who threaten their way of life? I'll need a source on that one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could that statement be any more uselessly broad/obviously impossible?

How many labels have been applied to Obama? Should we make a list and have you defend it?

Dang, that 1st amendment is really annoying if people aren't saying what you want them to say, isn't it? If you get rid of Fox and conservative talk radio, you also have to get rid of their admittedly less popular counterparts. Liberals have a forum that conservatives don't, though: movies. There is a case before the USSC right now that could seriously hinder guys like Michael Moore (it isn't about accuracy, but political campaigning).

There is a line that can't be crossed. You know that. We are not free to incite people to commit murder by lying about imaginary threats. There are first ammendment rights, but there is also a right to file law suits and assign responsiblity. Are you saying that we should abolish civil liability in order to protect Fox Noise and hate radio?

You're a big fan of Coast to Coast, right? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzpt - gone.

No, I haven't even listened to more than a few episodes in something like five years, and only then when people like Brian Greene were on. Beyond that, Coast to Coast doesn't incite people to violence. But it was a nice try.

Or. maybe you see Brian Greene as some kind of threat? Of course I'm sure you see him as some kind of crackpot.

 

[Proton Soup]

yeah, ivan, you're dipping into kooksville here. mediamatters is about as obvious a fringe liberal activist site as one could find.

as for motivation, first of all, the guy was a nut to begin with. he even got kicked out of the military i hear.

also, a lot of non-nutty people who simply believe in the 2nd amendment are spooked by Obama. and it didn't help that he chose a guy that doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment for AG, and then that AG goes on to make some inflammatory statements on his first day.

 

[LowlyPion]

That same can be said for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, which is what Fox has been doing.

Just as we have personal responsibility, the media has professional responsibilities. Note also that we have a legal system to make determinations wrt resposibility. That's one reason why we have civil courts.

- a lesson learned by Sally Jessy Raphael.

I'm less certain that Fox has been yelling fire, though people like Glen Beck and Dick Morris, the Fox and Friends hosts, et al. are pretty clearly in the business of stoking whatever dissent against the current administration with hyperbolic rhetoric, for what must be presumed as partisan reasons, or at best in order to profit off of playing to a partisan audience, but not out of any regard for presenting a balanced view that I can see.

I will grant that with the economy brought down about our ears by the last administration's oversight and enforcement negligence there has undoubtedly been an increase in stress in general to the fabric of tolerance. And with rising home defaults and job losses, one can reasonably expect that there are some out there that are under pretty extreme stress.

Now do the families of these Police officers have a case against Fox? I'd say not. Surely Fox has not been specifically urging nutcases to explode in civil violence against all authority. But should Fox seriously think about throttling back their more extreme moments of campaign like rhetoric, if only as a matter of being sensitive to the potential they have to create havoc, and promote increased social discord ...? I should hope that they would. But as it is today, after the tragic events in Pittsburgh, I see little sign that they are likely to change their partisan ways.

With the multiplication of information outlets over cable TV and the Internet, the belt seems to have been loosened considerably on fair and balanced, as a result the scarcity argument that once sustained the FCC limitations for equal time seems less compelling, and looking into the future, one must suppose that there will be more, and not fewer, media outlets devoted to specific ideologies across the spectrum.

 

[Al68]

With the multiplication of information outlets over cable TV and the Internet, the belt seems to have been loosened considerably on fair and balanced, as a result the scarcity argument that once sustained the FCC limitations for equal time seems less compelling, and looking into the future, one must suppose that there will be more, and not fewer, media outlets devoted to specific ideologies across the spectrum.

I'd call that a good thing if true. I grew up with virtually all the media devoted to the same ideology, and it going unnoticed and denied by those that didn't recognize it because they assumed that they wouldn't be allowed to say it if it wasn't true. Even then, anyone who bothered doing any research would find that the news media put out lies and propaganda. Of course, there are still many who are completely ignorant of any opposing viewpoint because they listen exclusively to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.

I can't even count the number of times that someone has told me they were on one side of an issue, while admitting they had no idea what the other side's point of view even was, except for a twisted version of it put out by their opponents.

 

[NBAJam100]

Ivan, (hypothetical...) what if i were to take a stab at killing someone who worked for the fox news network because all of the anti-fox things you've said on this site... It just pushed me to my limit let's say.

Say the family heard about this and decided to sue you because they heard all of the things you were saying, which led me to my actions. Fair?

 

[drankin]

Ivan can't even come up with remarks by Fox that remotely encourage that anyone should be killing cops. Left wing wackiness meets right wing lunatic (the gunman). And I doubt anyone in the right wing media would have anything in common with this Poplawski wackjob to begin with.

 

[WhoWee]

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200904070009

On the CNN noon broadcast today, Rick Sanchez, who IMO is not a serious journalist, is quoting a friend of Poplawski, who allegedly directly links Poplawski's killing spree to recent right-wing conspiracy rhetoric. He mentioned both Fox and hate radio. So far I don't see anything else about this, but this only ran thirty minutes ago.

Sanchez appears to be a hippocrit

http://www.bartcop.com/rick-sanchez-dwi.htm

Beck pointed this out in response to the broadcast.

Beck didn't tell anyone to shoot police.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So let's piece this together and see how it looks. I'm sure more information will be available over time. For now, here's one item.

The mother told police her son had been stockpiling guns and ammunition "because he believed that as a result of economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society," the affidavit said.

Friends have said Poplawski was concerned about his weapons being seized during Barack Obama's presidency, and friends said he owned several handguns and an AK-47 assault rifle. Police have not said, specifically, what weapons were used to kill the officers...

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20090405_ap_fightoverurinatingdoggotpolicetopaambush.html

 

[WhoWee]

Has Obama (or AG Holder) commented on any of the recent shootings...Oakland, Pittsburgh, Binghampton...or any of the recent domestic killings this week?

I was in Pittsburgh this week...they were expecting up to 20,000 law enforcement persons from across the nation to attend the funeral services.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just want to throw this in before I forget; just another great Fox News expert and something Fox chose to air!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

 

[LowlyPion]

Ivan, (hypothetical...) what if i were to take a stab at killing someone who worked for the fox news network because all of the anti-fox things you've said on this site... It just pushed me to my limit let's say.

Say the family heard about this and decided to sue you because they heard all of the things you were saying, which led me to my actions. Fair?

There is a crucial difference here. Ivan is an individual engaging in public discourse about issues of public interest.

The same cannot not be said of FoxNews. They are a for profit company, public licensee of bandwidth, apparently pursuing a business plan of promulgating under the guise of their own seemingly facetiously stated motto, "Fair and Balanced", or some such, content that the public is encouraged to take as factual. Their responsibilities far exceed the comments of an anonymous poster lending their opinion in public debate.

 

[LowlyPion]

Sanchez appears to be a hippocrit

http://www.bartcop.com/rick-sanchez-dwi.htm

Beck pointed this out in response to the broadcast.

Beck didn't tell anyone to shoot police.

Attacking Sanchez is totally irrelevant. It's a totally specious attempt by Beck to deflect criticism for his outrageous theatrical presentations, clearly intended to incite discord, and depict imminent doom. (Egads he even had that totally laughable farce discussing the issues from his Doom Bunker, or this totally ridiculous sob job he did about loving his country and his devotion to his project 9/12.)

 

[NBAJam100]

There is a crucial difference here. Ivan is an individual engaging in public discourse about issues of public interest.

The same cannot not be said of FoxNews. They are a for profit company, public licensee of bandwidth, apparently pursuing a business plan of promulgating under the guise of their own seemingly facetiously stated motto, "Fair and Balanced", or some such, content that the public is encouraged to take as factual. Their responsibilities far exceed the comments of an anonymous poster lending their opinion in public debate.

I do understand the difference you are talking about, however, I still feel this applies. Regardless of whether or not their responsibilities exceed that of an anonymous poster, its still on the people reading, or watching, to interpret it as they will. The sources provide information, the viewer interprets. If the viewer or reader interprets and comes to a conclusion that murder is necessary, something is seriously wrong with the reader/viewer.

My main point here is the issue of Ivans suggested law suit against fox news. I just don't feel that the majority, or any really, of the blame is on fox news. They do say radical things quite often (possibly always), but its on the people watching to take it and interpret it as they shall... When you allow a crazy person to have his way with interpretation and thought, apparently things can go awry! As I said before, if it wasnt this, it would have been something else that tipped him over the edge.

As people and myself mentioned before, its similar to the things about marilyn manson causing kids to kill themselves, etc... Hes just a guy putting music out for people to enjoy, although the message may be dark, its not meant to kill anyone and doesn't merit a lawsuit.

 

[Al68]

There is a crucial difference here. Ivan is an individual engaging in public discourse about issues of public interest.

The same cannot not be said of FoxNews. They are a for profit company, public licensee of bandwidth, apparently pursuing a business plan of promulgating under the guise of their own seemingly facetiously stated motto, "Fair and Balanced", or some such, content that the public is encouraged to take as factual. Their responsibilities far exceed the comments of an anonymous poster lending their opinion in public debate.

Does making a profit exempt someone from first amendment protection? If they shouldn't be trusted, or aren't fair and balanced in your opinion, isn't the burden on you to convince others you are right? Instead of just expecting those you disagree with to just shut up?

I understand the public airwaves issue, but the Marxist propaganda they call news on the other networks got a free pass for decades. Are we going to change the rules now that 3 networks don't have a complete stranglehold on mass media? After I spent all those years wanting to throw a brick through my TV and hit Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather in their foreheads with it for their lies, misrepresentations, and fraud?

 

[LowlyPion]

My main point here is the issue of Ivans suggested law suit against fox news. I just don't feel that the majority, or any really, of the blame is on fox news. They do say radical things quite often (possibly always), but its on the people watching to take it and interpret it as they shall... When you allow a crazy person to have his way with interpretation and thought, apparently things can go awry! As I said before, if it wasnt this, it would have been something else that tipped him over the edge.

To the extent that there would be a tortious claim against Fox, I tend to agree that one would be difficult to sustain. But insofar as they have a moral responsibility not to incite people at the fringes to act in anti-social ways, just because their favorite political party got its ears boxed in the last election cycle, then one would expect better of adults than I think they have put on display in the general unfettered tenor of their content. Personally, I think they do understand that they are profiting off of their appeal to these marginalized ideologues, clutching their guns with clenched fists, and I think they are at a minimum morally on the hook for what is a reasonably foreseeable possibility as a consequence of their amped up rhetoric.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

A certain logical fallacy comes to mind: post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause). Simply, just because events occur in a sequence does not mean that one necessarily lead to the other. Just because this lunatic watched or corresponded with Fox News before committing the crime does not necessarily mean that Fox News is responsible for this man's action. With this in mind, be careful to not leap to conclusions.

It should be fairly clear that this person had issues before hand. It's reasonable to infer that these issues could have played a large role in his decisions.

Yes, and Fox and hate radio have been spreading every lie conceivable, no matter how absurd, and stoking the fires as fast as they can. They should be sued out of existence.

Extreme, no? Sued out of existence? Ok, let's take a torch to the Constitution while we're at it. This is the kind of claim that can discredit your entire argument, along with any credibility you might have had.

 

[LowlyPion]

Does making a profit exempt someone from first amendment protection?

Of course not ... so long as it is not presented in a form that makes it clear that it is their editorial opinion, and not fabricated polemics clothed as factual content.

Here's the logo from their website for Heaven's sake.

From what I can see, that seems to go beyond deception and looks like plain fraud.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Just want to throw this in before I forget; just another great Fox News expert and something Fox chose to air!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

This is almost entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So you are equating inflammatory deceptions perpetrated on a bone-headed public with comic books?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Subcommittee_on_Juvenile_Delinquency
Some people were once so worried over the effect of comic books that laws and codes were put in place that drastically changed the entire industry.
We are talking about the liability of a news agency for the actions of its audience yes?

Marilyn perpetuated the myth that kids at Columbine are evil fascists who threaten their way of life? I'll need a source on that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Manson_(band)#Controversy
They're just blamed for school shootings and suicides is all. Guess that's disappointing.