.... is a lot less than is widely thought.
After the Tucson massacre there was a concerted campaign by the media, led by the New York Times and the local sheriff, to smear their political opponents by linking the killer to "polarising rhetoric", which was naturally only found on the right not the left.
So you'd think with such a concerted campaign of vilification would have results. Actually no, according to a Pew Survey, the proportion of the US population who believe that the shooting was linked to political rhetoric is.... 0.6%.
There are probably more people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Perhaps behind the apathy is a native cunning which recognizes [sometimes] when it is being sold a dud.
XX After the Tucson massacre there was a concerted campaign by the media, led by the New York Times and the local sheriff, to smear their political opponents XX
And people in Britain STILL think "elected police chiefs" is a jolly spiffing idea?
FT- I do, even after Sheriff Dupnik's behavious. It isn't as if our appointed police chiefs are any less political- look at the lobbying over the detention of terror suspects bill a few years ago or the entire career of Ian Blair is the post MacPherson Met.
So, there will be no change. They will just be doing it officialy.
Why should elected police chiefs be any different to the elected dross in Parliament?
Post a Comment