A New Media Motif: Vote Obama & Avoid Race Riots

The Hill.com introduced what could become a key media motif in the week before the election: If you vote against Obama, you could cause a riot.

At least in modern American history, this will be the first of its brand of political extortion perpetrated by the old liberal media, not just against voters, but against the African-American communities in cities across the country.

The article on TheHill.com, written by Alexander Bolton, states that,  

Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.

Who are these mysterious, unnamed "some" who worry? Where are they found? In the waiting rooms at Worry Clinics?

The author gives credit to Clintonesta James Carville for verbally introducing the topic of Election Day riots.

Carville, who served as a senior political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, said that many Democrats would be very angry if Obama loses. He noted that many Democrats were upset by Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) loss to President Bush in the 2004 election, when some Democrats made allegations of vote manipulation in Ohio, the state that ultimately decided the race.

Experts (What experts?) estimated that thousands of voters did not vote in Ohio because of poor preparation and long lines. Carville said Democratic anger in 2004 "would be very small to what would happen in 2008" if the same problems arose.

Carville said earlier this month that "it would be very, very, very dramatic out there" if Obama lost, a statement some commentators interpreted as predicting riots. In an interview Tuesday, however, Carville said he did not explicitly predict rioting.

He didn't explicitly predict rioting? Oh. I guess that would be a form of...er, incitement. (You have to wonder about Carville's motives here. Is he still working for the Clintons?)  He clearly did implicitly predict riots.  I guess it all depends on the meaning of "predict."

A Detroit police official added his thoughts:

James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit's police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.

The Second Deputy Chief is concerned that Detroit's Republican voters might riot?  What Detroit Republican voters?  That's like planning crowd control for a Gay Pride parade in Tehran. Not necessary.

But Tate declined to describe what the worst-case scenario might look like, speaking gingerly like other police officials who are wary of implying that black voters are more likely than other voting groups to cause trouble.

And there it is, folks. Mark it with your red pens. A mind-reading writer assigns motives to a source for not having said something. In this case the contrived motive is assumed to be the avoidance of implying what black voters might do to "cause trouble."  Is this contorted journalism, or what? 

Watch for mini-stories like these during the week before the election to support the riot motif.

  • A video piece showing helmeted, shielded police officers in some big city practicing crowd control for a riot situation.
  • A "community leader" like Al Sharpton counseling calm to a gathering of key black intercity leaders is some city.
  • A brief clip from riots after the MLK assassination (but surely not from the '68 Democratic convention where most of the rioters were white folks).
  • A spokesman from the Obama campaign assuring the media that the urban black neighborhoods would remain calm, regardless of the election outcome.

The underlying message: Vote right, or folks might riot. Thinly veiled political extortion at play. And most of all, it's patently unfair to blacks.