Do you think right-wing talking-heads *purposefully* try to incite violent behavior?

For as much as I can't stand the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and other right-wing gasbags, I don't believe that right-wing talking heads and figures are inciting violence *on purpose*.

The way I look at it, I think a lot of these guys are in it solely for the money and ratings. I seriously doubt Glenn Beck the person is nearly as crazy as his Faux News persona is. While I thought he was out there when he was with Headline News, I've noticed that his behavior got a lot more out there as soon as he got his own show on Faux. And he realizes the crazier he acts, the more people that will watch his show. While Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly seem to truly be unapologetically racist, misogynist homophobes with little empathy and blind support for the status quo, they also realize the more controversy they generate, the more people will listen to them.

It has been common on the left-wing blogosphere and on DU for posters to claim right-wing personas such as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, so forth and so on, are trying to incite the crazies to commit acts of violence on purpose. I seriously doubt that. They would have very little to gain from purposefully whipping people like that up, and A LOT to lose.

However, I DO believe that some of these right-wing personas have been rather careless with their rhetoric. They fail to understand (or don't care) that not everybody who watches or listens to their programs understands the difference between literal talk and hyperbole. Some of their listeners don't get what a metaphor is. They fail to realize that some of their more incendiary rhetoric has the potential to whip up mentally unstable viewers who don't understand what hyperbole is...or take one of their many paranoid screeds WAY too seriously.

A good case in point would be what happened with Richard Poplawski, the Pittsburgh cop-killer. Shortly after President Obama was sworn in, many right-wing media outlets began going on and on about a nonexistent "Obama gun ban." Never once did candidate Obama say ANYTHING about banning guns while on the campaign trail, but that obviously meant nothing to the right wing noise machine. Poplawski, who was rather paranoid and known to hold vicious racist and anti-Semitic beliefs, believed wholeheartedly in such nonsense about an Obama gun ban. On March 19, Glenn Beck aired on his program something about Obama planning to take guns away, and I can distinctly remember other right wing gasbags going on about the same crap in late March of last year. Right-wing blogs and newspapers were filled with "Obama gun ban" paranoia. On Saturday, April 4, 2009, the Pittsburgh Police were called to his Stanton Heights residence by his mother following a domestic dispute. Paranoid and fearing the arriving officers were going to take away his guns, Poplawski armed himself with an AK-47 assault rifle and opened fire on the arriving officers, killing Officers Paul Scuillo II and Stephen Mayhle almost instantly. Another officer, Eric Kelly, died upon responding to the ambush, while another two officers were injured.

When the right wing media and the talking heads went on and on about this "Obama gun ban" nonsense, was it their intent to stir violence and civil unrest? Absolutely not. They were simply looking for ratings, increased book sales, and ways to get their base all whipped up. Yet, they failed to understand that such incendiary, paranoid rhetoric has the potential to push unstable persons that are already predisposed to violence or don't understand what a metaphor is, over the edge. It's not the intent of right-wing fearmongers, but rather a careless but ultimately UNINTENDED side-effect from the fearmongering and paranoid talk.

who would become Timmy McVeighs at a drop of a Reason...''

and yet thet continue wwith Lock and ReLoad".....

Anger among the knuckle walking set is good for their business.

They are inciting violence. It is reckless endangerment. The fact they are only "entertainment" figures should not give them a free pass.

They are not doing it *on purpose*, but some of the dangerous rhetoric (such as what Bill O'Reilly said about Dr. Tiller), could possibly be argued as reckless endangerment.

It keep any uppity politicians from accidentally voting to help people.

Thats been Limbaugh's shtick since the early 90's, so the imitators incite to attract attention so they can make more money.

I dont believe they want violence, but their incitement of anger to increase ratings will be the end result, and I dont think they care if violence happens.

Violence intimidates.

These assholes are nothing more than bullies trying to get ignorant assholes to do their du=irty work for them.

And they know that some of those angry people will resort to violence.

That's close enough to deliberately inciting violence for me.

opposition--rational opposition can't work when the facts are against you. And it is also clear that they know some of those that they get riled up will get violent and they either don't care or glad because it helps their cause by intimidating their opponents. Riled up teabaggers are all about initimidation anyway, because they aren't interested in talking, just shouting and keep discussions from occuring. So...maybe they don't intend to foment violence but they aren't sorry about it either.

Mainly, because it increases their ratings and makes them look tough. They are also cradled by the false security blanket that says they are insolated from any public outbtreak of violence because of their status and position. They couldn't be more mistaken. They have to go out and buy food, gas and run errands like everybody else. You know the day is coming when someone opposing their basically unopposed nubaggery will go postal and decide to surprise them in a parking lot with a full clip.

They THRIVE on conflict. The more conflict, the better.

Conflict sells. It pays the bills. It gets eyeballs and raises Nielsen ratings.

Thoughtful analysis? Pfffft. Insightful research? *Yawn*.

Give 'em idiotic people yelling at each other. Now THAT's entertainment.