January 10, 2011


Bullseyes vs. Crosshairs

"With a long list of enemies, a taste for incendiary rhetoric and responsibility for a campaign website graphic that placed gunsight logos on a map of targeted congressional districts, it didn't take long for Sarah Palin to get pulled into the orbit of Saturday's massacre in Tucson," Politico reports.

John Gruber: "Much attention is now being paid to the gunsight crosshair imagery Sarah Palin used to target 20 congresspeople last year, including Gabrielle Giffords. Some of those defending Palin are pointing to this image from the Democratic Leadership Council after the 2004 election. It uses a bull's-eye to mark "target" states in the then-next presidential election. In a nation like ours, with its history of political assassinations by gun violence, I don't like that imagery, either. But there are some significant differences.

Tommy Christopher: "A bullseye is commonly associated with target practice, and as such, the bullseye itself is the inert, nonliving target. Crosshairs, on the other hand, represent the mechanism by which a target is acquired and killed. It is also an image that resonates in popular culture through countless repetitions, in films and television shows, of the assassin's POV shot. That the intent was to evoke something like a bullseye (only way tougher), and not the spectre of assassination, is an obvious, yet moot, point. Once that reasonable objection was raised, the image should have been abandoned."










POLITICAL WIRE PODCAST

Political Wire Podcast Engaging conversations about elections and the political issues of the day. Subscribe via iTunes or RSS to get episodes automatically downloaded.


FREE NEWSLETTER




PARTNER STORIES








TRENDING VIDEO


FOLLOW US