CNN puts itself "in the crosshairs"

This coordinated attempt to shut down vivid speech by the Right is getting very, very silly. In a calculated sort of way. Don Surber makes some important points about surrendering the language* to the Left. From the comments:

I’ve told them what it takes, for us to stop that and return to civil discourse:

WE’LL STOP THE YELLIN’ … WHEN Y’ALL STOP THE LYIN’!

 Byron York documents that before banning 'crosshairs,' CNN used it to refer to Palin and Bachmann.

. . . Mark Preston, CNN's senior political editor, referred to another controversial politician, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, as being "in the crosshairs." "Michelle Bachmann is raising lots of money, raising her national profile," Preston said on September 14. "She is in the crosshairs of Democrats as well."

It turns out Preston was back on CNN's air on Tuesday, discussing Palin's recent interview on Fox News. "We saw her on Fox News last night where she is a paid contributor," Preston said. "A kind of a friendly setting, but she defended herself from all the criticism that's been directed at her regarding a Web site that she had put out where she had used crosshairs over 20 Democratic candidates.

NOT TRUE. The crosshairs were over congressional districts on A MAP. Not over candidates. Sort of like the Democratic Party maps with bullseyes over congressional districts.  Was Prestons mischaracterization sloppiness or a calculated effort to suggest more violent imagery, do you think? Either way, it's not acceptable for a senior political EDITOR. York comments:

"Crosshairs" again. Just for the record, CNN anchors, reporters and guests did absolutely nothing wrong with their use of the word in the last month and before. It would be impossible, at least for any reasonable person, to argue that the network's use of "crosshairs" in any of the various contexts it was used, was an incitement to violence by anyone, anywhere. But by announcing that "we're trying to get away" from "crosshairs" and other allegedly incendiary language, CNN is aligning itself with those who blame "rhetoric" for the killings. And by doing that -- plus inviting the public to "hold us accountable" -- CNN could open itself up to an examination of its own uses of the word and accusations that it helped create an environment that led to violence. Does that make any sense at all?

Read the whole thing.

* Richard Fernandez has similar thoughts:

CNN is now apologizing for the use of the word “crosshairs” in general political speech, as shown in the video after the “Read More” jump. The implication is that the word itself has been used to facilitate a hate crime. That is untrue, as former New York City Mayor Ed Koch observes. But maybe the belief is that if a lie is repeated for long enough then it eventually becomes true. Then power follows. “Real power is the ability to define what the fight is about.” The entire discussion moves into a rigged casino. Control words and you control truth. George Orwell understood this so well that he believed one of the first things every totalitarian ideology does is redefine the words in a language, purposefully, forcefully and relentlessly. In his novel 1984, he called this artificial language of totalitarianism Newspeak. . . 

From the comments:

Orwell, indeed, is required reading. “1984″ should be read at least every couple of years (like the Bible?), just to keep us Westerners on our toes. (Dispensations will be available for those who have had to actually live that nightmare.)

Though in this, Orwell merely echoes Humpty Dumpty—another one of my intellectual heroes. . . .

UPDATE: More deception from CNN.  And from the New York Times and Salon:

The New York Times did this earlier, deleting Obama's line about whether incivil debate caused the Tucson shooting -- "It did not," Obama said, fairly directly, contradicting the New York Times' Narrative.


. . . The Narrative is more important than a president's actual words, so the actual words had to be changed to reinforce The Narrative. . .

Can't. Stop. The Narrative.

Reality-based community or community-based reality?

They're like the dead in Sixth Sense -- they only see what they want to see. So they don't know that they're... ghosts of a fallen age.

Kind of seems like that sometimes.