By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent incident, White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson shared an article on social media that she believed supported the government’s stance on left-wing terrorism. However, the article, which reported that left-wing attacks have outpaced far-right incidents this year, was misinterpreted, as the headline was corrected to clarify that it was not a 30-year high. The original study, from the Center for Strategic & International Studies, showed left-wing violence was less lethal than right-wing violence over the past decade and the authors warned against using the data to crack down on legitimate organizations. Despite the factual inaccuracies and criticism received, Jackson’s post remained online.
Read the original article here
The article that Abigail Jackson, a White House deputy press aide, seized upon was, to put it mildly, a misstep. It’s clear that in an attempt to deflect or spin the narrative surrounding recent shootings, she stumbled into a self-inflicted wound. The details suggest a deeply uncomfortable truth for her, and the administration she serves: the data simply didn’t support the intended conclusion.
The initial reaction from many, including those within the “flaired users only” subreddit, was one of bewilderment, and then outright ridicule. People quickly pointed out that the story she cited didn’t say what she seemed to imply. It’s not that left-wing attacks had reached a 30-year high, it was simply that they had, for a moment, outpaced right-wing incidents. A subtle, but crucial, difference. This highlights a recurring issue of cherry-picking stats, and selectively reading information, to fit a pre-existing narrative.
This brings up a key point; the inherent lack of accountability within certain political circles. When confronted with such blatant contradictions, the response seems to be less about acknowledging error, and more about doubling down. The absence of embarrassment is a glaring tell. It’s as if the ability to be ashamed has been removed, or at least suppressed. The goal is to maintain the narrative, regardless of the reality.
It’s worth considering the context of the discussion; there were multiple mass shootings over the weekend, the most recent occurring just a few days ago. The shooters were, in several cases, white males with backgrounds like military veterans. The Michigan shooter, was a confirmed Trump supporter. These facts underscore the political dimension of the violence.
The immediate instinct of some was to weaponize these events, to try and pin blame on the “other side” of the political spectrum. However, the data used to promote this attempt was ultimately flawed, leaving the Trump administration open to criticism, when the overall trend revealed the exact opposite: a higher incidence of right-wing violence over a 30-year time frame. The focus on ideology as the sole determinant of violence, and who is to blame, is too simplified.
It’s important to look into the deeper societal factors that are the root causes, factors like a lack of access to mental healthcare, economic anxiety, political polarization, or the easy access to weaponry. It’s important to note that solutions are needed to address these issues. It also doesn’t help when the focus turns to who is responsible, as the focus should be on the prevention and intervention of this tragic issue.
The response to the shootings highlights a broader problem of cynicism and tribalism. It’s easy to dismiss opposing viewpoints, and to demonize those who hold different beliefs. Rather than a united front, the public is often presented with a series of talking points designed to exacerbate division. The goal appears to be to stoke fear and resentment, while the underlying causes of violence remain unaddressed.
This incident shows how quickly these events can be politicized and used to advance a particular agenda. It suggests that certain individuals and groups are more interested in scoring political points than in finding actual solutions. The reaction suggests they are more interested in the perception of winning, than in actually winning.
The episode involving Abigail Jackson is a microcosm of this larger problem. The attempt to spin the narrative backfired spectacularly, but the lesson is unlikely to be learned. Instead, we can probably expect more of the same: more misinformation, more deflection, and more attempts to exploit tragedy for political gain. Ultimately, that type of behavior further widens the gap between what is said, and what is true, further fueling distrust and cynicism.