We need to have a serious conversation about what violent attacks on the media mean in a democracy. (1/?)
I'll start off with a couple of stories from my time as a student journalist, which may seem entirely different from what happened in Annapolis (and they are), but they're not unrelated. Misunderstanding and hatred of the media have deep roots in this country.
A reporter of mine wrote a story about drug activity at a fraternity. He was later verbally threatened by some of the fraternity's members at a party.
Another time, a year after I graduated, my former paper wrote about incidents at another fraternity. Someone then removed all of the newspapers from kiosks around campus.
Again, I mention these things not to equivocate pissed-off college students with shootings, but rather to highlight that retaliating against journalists for doing their jobs is not new. What *is* is the widespread and state-sanctioned acceptance of that retaliation.
The administration's comments aimed at discrediting and humiliating journalists make hating the media part and parcel of the national conversation. It opens the door for people to push boundaries. I used to send angry emails; maybe now I can be angry in public.
I yelled at a reporter in public and I'm still angry; maybe now I can retaliate with violence. These things escalate when you think the people in power are on your side.
tl;dr: We don't know much about the Annapolis shooting yet, but if you think the hostile climate toward journalists under the Trump administration has absolutely nothing to do with it (& with what reactions will look like in the next few hours), you haven't been paying attention.
And when the state encourages retaliation against the institutions that seek to hold it accountable, even it that encouragement is not explicitly about violence...well.
