KIRO Radio’s Jason Rantz did not appreciate Democrat congressional candidate Jason Ritchie’s attempts to capitalize on the tragic school shooting in Marysville by issuing a press release meant to drum up attention for his own candidacy. On his radio show Friday, Rantz called out Ritchie—who is running a losing campaign against Rep. Dave Reichert—for exploiting the shooting for political gain.
Ritchie’s press release—which he also posted on his Facebook page—calls for voters to respond to the shooting by voting for I-594 and “elected officials who support new national standards and background checks that mirror what we are trying to do in Washington State.” The press release goes on to urge voters to “demand that not one more time will this happen.” And, to do so by “fight[ing] back with our vote.” Ritchie does not express condolences or comfort to the grieving. His press release is purely political.
When Rantz reached out to Ritchie for an explanation, the “ideological opportunist”—in the words of Rantz—gave a less than satisfactory answer. Ritchie justified his press release by saying he is “encouraging people to take political action in the face of tragedy.” He cited misleading statistics on school shootings and suggested future tragedies could be prevented by I-594.
Rantz blasted Ritchie’s use of false statistics and flawed logic, clarifying what exactly I-594 would do (Ritchie does not appear to understand the initiative). However, what really proves to exasperate Rantz is the Democrat’s refusal to recognize his press release as political exploitation. Rantz states,
“Most people see tragedy and immediately they want to show support to those involved. A soulless, disgraceful individual sees tragedy and sees it as an opportunity to promote something. To promote themselves, to promote a political ideal. He seems to care more about his campaign than a community.”
Rantz wraps up the segment by promising listeners that he will never again mention Ritchie’s name—other than to report his loss to Reichert on Election Day. That’s an attitude we here at SHIFT can respect considering we’ve also been hard-pressed to bother mentioning the ideological opportunist’s name in the past.
You can listen to Rantz’s radio segment here.
You can view Ritchie’s press release below.
“Rantz wraps up the segment by promising listeners that he will never again mention Ritchie’s name—other than to report his loss to Reichert on Election Day.”
What a sissy that aptly-named Rantz is! How about he make Ritchie the subject of a daily Two Minutes’ Hate every morning at eleven?
“That’s an attitude we here at SHIFT can respect …”
Of course it is. All of your endless caterwauling about media bias is really just a yearning to censor anyone you don’t like. Thank for admitting it.
Jason Rantz says
What a… dumb comment. Wow.
So, Mr. Rantz, if Mr. Ritchie wins the election, will you still report his defeat? That certainly sounds like “journalism” ShiftWA would support.
Also, KIRO is licensed by the FCC to provide a public service. Please explain how your proposed censorship serves that purpose.
Jason Rantz says
I’m not a journalist. I’m an analyst or commentator. And if you think this is censorship you haven’t a clue what the word means. I have a news anchor — he’s free to report he wants including the ‘Candidate who will lose to Reichert.”
So, if Ritchie wins, do you keep your promise, or do you tell a blatant and foolish lie to your listeners? Is this an example of the superior ethics we liberals always hear about from conservatives?
If KIRO radio decides to stop broadcasting in the public interest — like, say, meaningful reporting on local elections – then maybe the FCC should give the license to someone who wil.
You’re an idiot tensor, Ritchie win the election? Quit smoking so much dope you idiot!
I agree a Ritchie victory is highly unlikely. Reichert is a long-term, career politician who has never received critical scrutiny from our mainstream media, and he’s a Republican in the sixth year of a Democratic President’s term. Those three facts alone almost guarantee his victory. My point was that Rantz has made a promise, fulfillment of which depends on the actions of other people. What do you think of such a decision? Should a person with such a trait be granted a privileged position in our political discourse?