Outrage mobs are nothing new and have grown in popularity as the country grows more politically and culturally divided.
Nearly every week, something sets off one side that is often applauded by the other. The following week, the same thing will occur, albeit with the roles reversed. It’s yet another part of this exhausting, 24-hour news cycle society that we’re immersed in.
There is much to be said about not fanning the flames of each and every little annoyance, faux spectacle, and indignation. After all, it’s bound to occur again, and probably very soon.
There are times, however, when the offended majority is correct. In these moments, it does no good to fold back into tribalism and declare them wrong simply because they’re the opposition. This kind of consistency is what ultimately brings about much-needed credibility. Taking each incident as it comes, and weighing whether or not to vocally criticize, is important.
Currently, there is plenty of discussion surrounding statements made by Fox News personalities Tucker Carlson and Jeanine Pirro. Carlson’s statements from several years ago, unearthed by Media Matters for America — an extremely biased organization that only holds one side accountable — were indefensible. In the radio clips, he expresses rather permissive views on child marriage, rape, and more than once uses a derogatory sexual term to describe a female. The fact that a leftist organization brought them to light years later does not mean they’re worth defending. It’s possible to have a problem with Carlson’s statements, no matter how old they are, while still acknowledging that MMFA does this routinely without applying the same standards to their own. The binary schtick that says you must only take issue with one or the other is awfully lazy.
Jeanine Pirro’s statements on Saturday about Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., are not only more recent, but were expressed on a major network’s show.
In the end, Fox News rightly condemned Pirro’s suggestion that wearing a hijab means one is against the Constitution. As established in Article VI of the founding document Pirro mentioned, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
It is true that Omar made very clear, anti-Semitic statements and received barely a slap on the wrist for them by House leadership. This is infuriating. But the inability of Democrats to hold her accountable does not mean her religion or religious dress should be a target for ridicule and a means to question her commitment to her nation as a congresswoman. It simply doesn’t.
It’s easy to get frustrated with the mainstream, left-leaning media and their hyperfocus on every word said by the president, politicians, and pundits alike. The extreme reactions are expected and the replays get very tiresome. Unfortunately, we on the Right are so used to what they’ll say and how they’ll say it that our first response can often be a defensive one that boils everything down to an obsession with outrage. But this reaction is not appropriate in every instance.
No, being offended does not automatically make one correct in their assertions. However, viewing that offense as nothing and belittling it does not make one right, either. How refreshing it would be if no one let politics sway them when dissecting statements of anti-Semitism, child rape and gendered ridicule, or requirements for government service. Wrong is wrong no matter the party letter or public platform.
I don’t like an unthinking, mob-like mentality. But sometimes the crowd opposite of you, whether your name is Omar, Carlson, or Pirro, is right to be disturbed.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.
