Hoplophobia, Homophobia and Political Correctness

Have you noticed how differently those who criticize non-PC issues such as gun rights are treated by the media as opposed to those who dare to make a PC blunder such as saying something politically incorrect about a minority? Under "Today's Picks" on MSN, I saw an article entitled, "Gun Remark Makes Outdoorsman an Outcast." The story links through to a Washington Post article of the same name with a caption: "Criticism of hunters who use assault rifles puts writer’s career in jeopardy." The article describes the plight of "poor misunderstood" writer, Jim Zumbo:

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

The article appears to be sympathetic to Zumbo's cause and the Post trots out an "outdoorsman" who basically calls NRA members attack dogs:

Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.

"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.

"For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."

Say Uncle has more about the above article and its pitfalls here.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the above article is not my main point here; it is to compare the media treatment of Jim Zumbo's politically correct position of likening hunters with assault rifles to terrorists to that of someone like Isaiah Washington who made the horrible mistake of daring to criticize a politically correct minority. Rather than treat Washington as the sympathetic character they portray Zumbo as, the media seems to revel in Washington being a pariah who is sent to a treatment facility to "cure" the possibility that he will ever make a homophobic slur again! Take a foul mouthed shot at a minority and one is sent to rehab. Trash a gun owner and liken him or her to a terrorist and you are a sympathetic character who is being attacked by the fringe members of the NRA. I certainly do not condone what Washington said when he called a castmate a sexist slur, yet is it really okay for the The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation to request an apology (probably yes), try to get him fired and ABC to send Washington to "rehab," all with no one in the MSM saying this might be wrong or at least giving an opposing view as they did with the gun slur? Why is one type of speech seen by the media as okay and worth defending and the other politically incorrect type seen as not worthy of anything but disdain and punishment?

I wonder when guys like Zumbo will be asked to go to rehab to treat their Hoplophobia? Probably when Hell freezes over--as it should be, for freedom of speech is always worth defending no matter whether we are offended by it or not.