And the Press Wonders Why Its Freedom is Threatened

A columnist that I've never heard of, writing in a newspaper that I have heard of, pens a piece of commentary throwing insults at President Bush. Fair enough. His last words, however, move the column from the trashpile of political ephemera into the Casebook of Evidence for Press Irresponsibility:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Bear in mind: commentary is not journalism. Commentary expresses an opinion. Journalism presents facts or events and lets the reader draw an opinion. This is a commentary. A Guardian journalist will say so, and say (s)he doesn't write stuff like that. (Well, one hopes not.)

So, with that in mind, shall we fisk this paragraph?

"On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses."

A rhetorical assumption, of course. The columnist has the implied definition of "civilised world" as "everyone who agrees with me, or at least respects my opinion." And it's somewhat ironic that a "civilized" (which by definition includes secular education) world should have an implicit belief in God.

However, it occurs to me that there are more important things to pray about than the election or defeat of George W. Bush. One's own health, for example. Or the health of a loved one. Or a mind that is capable of passing tomorrow's pop quiz. Or that the food in front of me isn't going to poison me. (This is especially true if I'm eating my own cooking.)

"And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all."

"Sod's law" is just the British term for Murphy's Law: "if it can go wrong, it will." Certainly the Democrats and their supporters, CBS News, and Senator Kerry can point to specific points in their campaign where Murphy's Law came into play. And George W. Bush can point to a number of points where Murphy's Law counted against him. Consequently, in a campaign run by professional politicians, whoever makes the least mistakes wins.

The last half of the sentence is a faulty conclusion, especially from a civilised Christian point of view. Readers ofThe Book of Job understand that God doesn't answer prayers by causing specific events to happen or not happen. What doubters (and most Christians) tend to forget is that sometimes, God's answer is "no."

"The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us."

Overblown rhetoric, of course. Politicized people, especially on the ideological Left, tend to write that way. Now, this leads up to something, a modest proposal:

"John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

This is where the line is crossed. The first three sentences, given their references to God or a deity, have the implication of prayer. Invoking the names of two well-known assassins and one would-be assassin (Hinckley only wounded Ronald Reagan) and addressing them directly with the phrase "we need you" -- this leads to the conclusion that the author is publicly praying for the murder of the sitting U.S. president.

Civilized people don't call for the murder of political leaders. It's one of the reasons why Suddam Hussein is still alive. If the Iraqis kill him it will be after a trial and a guilty verdict, which is respective of the rule of law, in which case it isn't murder. People may call for the removal of people from power, but they usually mean legal removal--through an election, or termination after a proven display of incompetence. (Note the word "proven"; it is not yet been definitely proven that President Bush is completely incompetent.)

Assassination is an illegal removal that, more often than not, makes things worse instead of better. Killing Lincoln made it harder for the Northern and Southern states to reconcile after the American Civil War. Killing Kennedy hardened attitudes and dropped the temperature of the Cold War a number of degrees, leading to a less informed prosecution of the Vietnam War. Assassination is wrong, and it is wrong for the columnist to call for it.

The columnist's defenders will coyly point out that he does not explicitly state that he wants the President assassinated. In which case, I ask them, why then did he write what he did? All the column was supposed to be about was the performance of President Bush during the campaign debates. Why bring up the subject of assassins at all? There are other ways that he could have made his rhetorical point, that he thinks President Bush should be voted out of office.

We believe in freedom of expression, but we know from experience that expressing certain ideas, or allowing them to be published (or screened, or downloaded, or otherwise viewed publicly) can have disastrous consequences. We have anti-hate laws that ban literature denying the veracity of the Holocaust, because we don't want genocide repeated. We have laws banning child pornography because we don't want our kids traumatized by sexual exploitation. It is therefore reasonable to refer to a public call for assassination as an example of something that should be barred as a hate crime.

A slippery slope, some media critics may say. Which is why people hear calls for a responsible media. One that knows the power of its words, and exercises it carefully. One that throoughly and continually checks its own veracity and fairness, lest a higher authority do it for them. One, finally, that wouldn't allow that last paragraph to go public.

If our columnist is smart, he will put out a retraction of that paragraph. No doubt the Guardian's e-mail is filled to bursting with complaints or worse, but it will be a mistake if he reacts by digging in and "standing by" his comments.

And he'd better be praying about what could happen if President Bush wins ...

UPDATE (22h41 UTC): It seems our columnist--along with the Guardian editorial staff--have smartened up. The above link should now connect to an apology to readers. Interesting that he attempts to explain that paragraph as an ironic joke--that he thought people would find the idea of assassination funny. If so, it's proof positive that this liberal elitist has no sense of humor.