In recent weeks we have seen many horrible events in the news. Normally you can glean information from watching the news on television, but the assault on Rand Paul was barely covered by the mainstream news media.
The Republican Senator from Kentucky was outside of his home mowing the lawn when he was blindsided by his neighbor. The assault left him with five fractured ribs and bruised lungs. Regardless of politics, these are serious injuries for a sitting Senator to receive and be glossed over by the media.
While we know what happened in this case, we don’t know the motives of the attacker, nor why the mainstream media did not feature this story more. When the mainstream media did offer its limited coverage, the assault was made to be a dispute between two neighbors and not about anything political.
According to an article on Townhall.com, it is believed that Paul’s neighbor is an outspoken anti-Trump man and that he also pushed for a single-payer health care system. These two have also been reported to have had heated discussions about the health care system. Townhall does still acknowledges that this could just be a dispute between neighbors that escalated to disproportionate levels, but this doesn’t excuse the lack of coverage by the mainstream media at all.
It is still unclear as to why exactly the media has chosen to try to bury this story, but I have a couple of theories as to why they may be choosing not to cover it. I think that perhaps the story of Paul’s assault doesn’t fit the narrative the mainstream media wants to push and so they would prefer to make more room for an alternative story that feeds into their narrative. If this is the case, then I believe that it is despicable that an organization would try to bury the story just because they do not like the reality of the story. That being said, it is also possible that the Sutherland Springs Texas shooting overshadowed the coverage on Rand Paul’s assault because they occurred on the same weekend. If this is the case, the non-coverage by media still presents a dangerous precedent that there may not be a proper and widespread investigation afterward.
While you could say that covering attacks like these more will only serve to encourage copycat attacks, I think that the majority of the people who might commit an assault on a politician (of any political identity) might think twice about all the negative attention they would receive afterward if the mainstream media covered and demonized these acts publicly. I think it’s crucial for the mainstream media to cover these kinds of events, but especially the criminal charges that result from an attack on a politician.
The mainstream media has the ability and tools to dissuade others from committing these types of acts, so they should use it.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.