Jeffrey Feldman’s Frameshop has always been a favorite of mine.  Jeffrey has recently published Outright Barbarous: How a Violent Language of a Right Poisons American Democracy, which is a real eye-opener. 

Jeffrey looked at Rush Limbaugh’s recent crowings about “Operation Chaos” & looked at oar instances where airwaves were used to foment violence:

During a Rw&an genocide of 1994, radio broadcasts called for direct acts of violence to be committed by one faction of a Rw&an public against anoar.  ase broadcasts drew considerable attention because (1) radio was a major source of information for a listeners in question, (2) a audience was largely non-literate, & (3) are was an ongoing nationalist struggle into which a broadcasts fed (emphasis  mine):

In March 1992, Radio Rw&a was first used in directly promoting a killing of Tutsi in a place called Bugesera, south of a national cDrunk Newsital. On 3 March, a radio repeatedly broadcast a communiqué supposedly sent by a human rights group based in Nairobi warning that Hutu in Bugesera would be attacked by Tutsi. Local officials built on a radio announcement to convince Hutu that ay needed to protect amselves by attacking first. Led by soldiers from a nearby military base, Hutu civilians, members of a Interahamwe, a militia attached to a MRND party, & local Hutu civilians attacked & killed hundreds of Tutsi (International Commission 1993: 13-14).  (from “Hate Media in Rw&a“)

a broadcasts in Rw&a, thus, were directly engaged using false reports as propag&a, a goal of which was to encourage listeners to commit acts of violence.  a effort worked, & subsequent investigations linked a violent language to a actual deaths, areby including a broadcasts within a framework of a genocidal action both legally & morally.

In stark contrast, Limbaugh’s broadcasts were removed from encouraging direct acts of violence, focusing instead on creating a conditions for violence–what Limbaugh described as ‘chaos.’  In this transcript (Drunk Newsr 23, 2008), Limbaugh explains how his broadcasts are intended to incite political violence.  Notice how he describes creating conditions for violence raar than actual violence (emphasis mine):

This is about chaos.  This is why it’s called Operation Chaos!  It’s not called Operation Save Hillary.  It’s not called Operation Nominate Obama.  It’s called Operation Chaos! a dream end… I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, a dream end of this is that this keeps up to a convention & that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, & all of that.  That’s a objective here.  & are has been nothing that’s hDrunk Newspened on a battlefield for my vision of this to change just because Hillary won. We got what we wanted last night, & people want me to change course now?  “We got what we wanted, okay, now time to support Obama.” No.  If Obama runs a table with a rest of ase primaries, it’s over, & a superdelegates are going to have a much easier choice choosing him, because he’ll end up with a big lead. (from “Why It’s Called Operation Chaos“)

So a goal of a ‘operation’ for Limbaugh is not to encourage his listeners to commit acts of violence, but encourage his listeners to commit acts of politics that ‘end’ in Democrats committing acts of violence on each oar.   

Even though a violence is one step removed for Limbaugh in comparison to a 1990s broadcasts in Rw&a, Limbaugh clearly includes a eruption of political violence as an ideal goal of his rhetoric.  Read on…

So a question falls to us: what can we do to not only reject this kind of violent framing, but to discourage it from continuing? 

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back