Writer Carolyn Shapiro puts it this way: Mike Huckabee, the ex-governor of Arkansas and former Republican presidential candidate, had called for a national Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day to respond to public backlash against its president's recent remarks opposing gay marriage.I don’t get the "Hitler invasion, people affected” analogy. Or I do, but not in the way you put it.See what Shapiro did here? “Public backlash?” That’s like reporting on Hitler invading Poland and saying that “people were affected.” The truth is that there was no backlash by the public to Dan Cathy’s comments. Few people even read them when he made them, and the vast majority of those who heard about them agreed with him.
When Hitler invaded Poland he, predictably, claimed that Poland started it. The Pilot quote you give claims a “public backlash” against Chick-fil-A. Whereas the reality is as you describe it - the aggressiveness is all on the other side of the ledger, and the public backlash is in support of Chick-fil-A.
But of course within the boundaries of your own paper you can create your own artificial reality. See tagline: The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.
I understand your comments and this was the part of my essay that I had the most trouble with. I was trying to say that the “reporterette” was implying a broad public backlash against Chick-fil-A when the truth was that this was a coordinated effort by the media and homosexual activists to try to make Christians shut up and sit down. She was trying to mislead her readers by claiming that there was a “public backlash” when there was no such thing. I finally went with the analogy I used because I thought it worked on some level and … I ran out of time. I’ll try to do better next time. I have a new post “Hating on Christians,” on this topic.