After every mass public shooting, there’s a rush in the media to spin the tragedy before the bodies are even cold. Take the recent Pulse nightclub shooting as an example. It was a hate crime we were told, motivated by homophobia – probably carried out by some NRA supporting, gun toting Republican.Yeah – that narrative fell apart pretty fast. The evidence quickly became undeniable that shooter Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS – and it was discovered that his family had their allegiance pledged to the Democrat Party.
Just the other day, Omar’s Taliban-sympathizing father, whose only complaint with his son’s actions was that he didn’t let Allah decide their fate, attended a Hillary Clinton rally, and endorsed her afterwards. And what happened? The same media who would’ve reported on this non-stop for weeks had he attended a Donald Trump rally went silent. And how do we know they’re being hypocritical? Because look at how they reported on another controversial endorsement, courtesy of Newsbusters:When a white supremacist endorsed Trump, the broadcast networks blamed Trump for it. But when the radical father of a terrorist endorsed Hillary and showed up in the front row of one of her rallies, these same networks quickly dismissed it as nothing worth worrying about.
During the first three days of coverage after David Duke, a white supremacist and former leader of the KKK, endorsed Donald Trump back in February, the evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC devoted 11 minutes and 35 seconds to bashing Trump for not immediately denouncing Duke, after he already had.
But when the father of the Orlando terrorist, who himself openly supports the Taliban, showed up in the front row of a Hillary Clinton rally and vocally endorsed her, those same shows on ABC and CBS quickly dismissed it as a coincidence, giving it only 1 minutes 54 seconds of coverage on August 9. NBC went a step further and failed to cover Seddique Mir Mateen attending Hillary’s rally at all until the following day, when they gave it a whopping 18 seconds of coverage. ABC and CBS didn’t mention this story at all on August 10.
Newsbusters forgot to mention this, but the Duke endorsement was a figment of the media’s attention. Nobody even bothered to double check if the endorsement had actually been given from Duke to Trump until it was in the news for days. While he says he’ll be voting for Trump, Duke himself says that he never endorsed him.
So there we have it – fictitious endorsements from racists get six times mote attention than an actual endorsement from a Taliban sympathizer. The only difference? The Party of the candidate receiving the endorsement.[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]