We all know how this is going to play out, right? If possible, this story will be swept under the rug by the mainstream media. If that’s not possible, the coverage will consist of explanations of how the FRC had it coming.
Here’s some early reaction from Jonah Goldberg:
One of the headlines reads:
Police: Suspect disagreed with Family Research Council
“Disagreed”? The suspect shot someone. “Disagreed”!? Why so bombastic? Why not say that the would-be killer “had a different perspective’?
Now, I can’t really complain when authorities or newspapers (not the same thing) err on the side of caution. Nonetheless, I can’t help but be angry when the press exercises caution so selectively. I find it very hard to believe that a similar suspect entering the offices of a more politically correct organization would earn such restraint.
And Erick Erickson:
But because the Family Research Council promotes the values shared by a majority of Americans, but only a minority of the left in and outside the media, this story will move on off the radar.
Instead, the Human Rights Campaign, which aggressively supports gay rights, will go on calling the Family Research Council a hate group, which it did the day before the shooting, the media will give the shooting a passing reference, and it will all be forgotten until Brian Ross and ABC News can figure out a way to pin it on the tea party. Notes one nut on twitter, “a shooting at #FRC HQ was a long time coming. Though I’m surprised the #AFA wasn’t 1st. Hate begets hate. #NOH8 #Bigotry”
Really, this is a chance for major media outlets to earn back some respect by going after this story as hard as they go after other shooting stories. Or rather, it would be a chance if they were interested in respectability.