-
I understand that the media have to behave in a certain fashion, yes. Their jobs are largely dependent on presenting politics as a parlour game, where good faith actors have abstract ideological disagreements about how to achieve good outcomes. I don’t see why we are obligated to replicate that behaviour here or anywhere else.
Do you disagree that we can separate the wrongs of political violence from the character of the victim? If Bolsonaro were to be assassinated tomorrow, would you want the papers to be full of “he was a good man, he was a wise man”? And if they were, would you not acknowledge that would be degrading to civil norms?
Eejit-
Obviously, you haven't answered my question. :)
I'm not replicating any behaviour of the media. Once again, an MP has been murdered, and regardless of political affiliation, that is what matters.
With polarising figures like Bolsonaro, you'd have a polarised media picture following his demise, just as you had it when Trump lost the election. It's not a useful comparison to two rank-and-file MPs, following whose murders you get tributes not unlike those you'd get for most public figures. Very few public figures get negative obituaries. You really have to be of the calibre of a Jimmy Savile to get one.
Oliver Schick
So did you really object to it when people said lots of nice things about Jo Cox? I'm sure she was also vilified on-line by hate-filled people, but the mainstream media reaction seems to me to have been pretty much the same as with David Amess. Unless it's a serial murderer or someone like that, people try to say nice things about prominent figures who die. I'm not sure that amounts to hagiography. I maintain that the important thing here is to acknowledge the victim was attacked in his function as an MP. Everything else pales into insignificance.