I actually watched the FOX news coverage of the shootings and killings, and the story as it unfolded. I contemplated comparing an hour-by-hour comparison of the coverage on each of the networks; however, I never got around to doing it. It is a much bigger project than I anticipated. It might be a good thesis topic for someone.

It is my impression that the FOX News coverage of the story as it unfolded was factual in a very confused situation. I was surprised. In the first few hours of coverage, they got a few things wrong such as who was killed and who was injured. This was attributed to misinformation provided by its sources within various government agencies. Early on they gravitated towards viewing the violence as the product of an extremely disturbed individual — this was after saying early on that they did not have enough information to explain what happened. It was somewhat later that they criticized other reports that suggested that Loughner may have been influenced by the rhetoric of the right. A number of bloggers savagely attacked Sarah Palin, Conservative Radio talk show hosts, the Tea Party, and FOX News. Looking back, I think that most FOX News coverage was reasonably representative of what actually happened, including that of Bill O’Reilly. Rather than falling back on the usual mantra, it would be more productive for opponents to cite specific things that were said in full context.

Based upon what I have read, it appears to me that many Left leaning observers chose to react through an ideological prism rather than report and analyze. Of course, many of the bloggers were the worst, but this perspective also seemed to influence other accounts. It was only later that those holding this view had to back away.

I appreciate President Obama’s call for civility; however, I am extremely pessimistic about political actors in the broadest sense being able to achieve his vision. I’m not even sure that President Obama will be able to do so.

“Newspeak,” in my opinion is a problem on all sides. “Obamacare” is one example; but we also need to remember the names of the heath care act as it evolved: the House started with “America’s Affordable Health Choice Act of 2009” and the Senate called its initial version the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” There are real questions as to the long-term impacts of the bill that we now know as the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. It is possible that the act and the name for it might have been different if a bi-partisan approach had been used.

I’ve learned over the years never to underestimate people on the other side of a negotiation; or an enemy on a battlefield. Both must be respected, and when emotions displace reason, the outcome is frequently bad.