Great idea! Unfortunately, the media doesn't like to incriminate itself because you just KNOW what fact would come out next...
The Media's Anti-gun Bias
The labels "lobby" and "special interest group" are rarely used by journalists to describe lobbies or special interest groups like the American Association of Retired Persons, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, or Handgun Control Inc. But when they refer to the National Rifle Association, "lobby" is frequently the first word that springs to mind.
That is one of many anomalies documented by Brian Patrick, a University of Michigan scholar who spent a year comparing the coverage of the NRA in several prestigious newspapers - The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Christian Science Monitor - with the coverage of the four other groups. He dissected some 1,500 published articles, columns, editorials, and letters, and his findings are striking.
The NRA, Patrick shows, is less likely than the others to be identified by its proper name but much more likely to be tagged with some variant of "lobby" or "special interest." The ACLU will typically be labeled a "civil liberties group," "abortion rights group," or "leading liberal champion." Handgun Control Inc. is usually identified as a "citizens' lobby," "nonprofit organization," or "public interest group." The NAACP is referred to as a "national civil rights group," "venerable civil rights organization," or "the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization."
But when the NRA is in the news, the tone and terminology are often very different.
"Semi-automatic caucus." "Lobbying juggernaut." "Powerful gun lobby." "Gun organization." "Radical gun lobby." "The classic Washington superlobby." "Arrogant lobby." "The gun lobby consisting of everything from neo-Nazis to nature-loving hunters." "Most feared lobby." "The Beltway's loudest lobby." "A rich and paranoid organization."
The use of negative or positive labels was only one of 16 different categories Patrick devised for measuring bias in newspaper coverage of the NRA. Many of his yardsticks are shrewd; all are revealing.
Example: More than 27 percent of stories about the liberal interest groups - the NAACP, AARP, ACLU, and Handgun Control - were accompanied by photographs of the groups' officials or events. Only 6 percent of the NRA stories were similarly dressed up.
Example: When NRA officials were quoted, they were identified by their proper titles less than 20 percent of the time. For Handgun Control, by contrast, the proportion was 64 percent; for the NAACP, 73 percent. Thus Sarah Brady is the "Handgun Control president," while Wayne LaPierre becomes merely an "NRA lobbyist" (he is the group's executive vice president).
Example: When information comes from the AARP, the papers use verbs like "reported," "indicated," "concludes," "documents." When the NAACP is quoted, the stories note that it "spoke out," "vowed," "declared," "announced." But when the NRA speaks, the papers often choose verbs that imply doubt: "claims," "asserts," "likes to portray," "contended," "alleging."
Patrick sifts his data with the statistical rigor one would expect of a Michigan PhD. But his bottom line is unambiguous: "These data support a conclusion of systematic marginalization of the NRA."
And, he might have added, of guns and gun owners in general.
On no other issue is there a wider gulf between mainstream America and the media. There are more than 225 million civilian firearms in the United States. Some 45 percent of US households own at least one gun. To tens of millions of Americans, guns mean safety and peace of mind; they know intuitively what statistics prove: gun ownership reduces crime.
Yet in the nation's eminent newsrooms, it is axiomatic that guns are nasty, that more guns mean more crime, and that those who defend the Second Amendment are "gun nuts." No wonder the NRA gets such bad press. And no wonder so many gun owners have abandoned newspapers as their chief source of information.
And then there's TV.
A detailed new study by the Media Research Center finds that in the 24 months ending June 1999, the morning and evening news shows on the major networks aired an astonishing 653 stories dealing with gun policy. Of those, 393 clearly went beyond straight reporting into advocacy - and nearly 91 percent pressed an anti-gun point of view.
For instance, ABC's "Good Morning America" aired 93 segments on gun policy; 92 had a progun control slant. CNN's nightly show, "The World Today," broadcast 98 soundbites urging more gun restrictions, but only 40 opposing them.
The MRC study (read it at
www.mrc.org) assembles a remarkable array of gun-bashing rhetoric from TV talking heads. Juan Williams on Fox: "I don't understand why we're piddling around. We should talk about getting rid of guns in this country." Geraldo Rivera on CNBC: "How much longer are we gonna be wrapping in the flag of patriotism to justify 250 million guns out there?" Roger Rosenblatt on PBS: "If you took away the guns, and I mean really take away the guns, not what Congress is doing now, you would see that violent society diminish considerably."
This bigotry against guns is irrational. It convinces millions of Americans that the media cannot be trusted. Someday the networks may figure out that in a land where almost one household in two owns a gun, demonizing gun owners makes no sense. But by then, who will be tuned in?
This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 1/17/2000. By Jeff Jacoby
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/017/oped/The_media_s_antigun_bias+.shtml
____________________________________________________________________________
And people wonder why I don't even turn on the TV anymore. I listen to NPR news on my radio to and from work. They ACTUALLY give equal lime allotments for both sides to EVERY issue. Unlike the local broadcasts that give S.A.F.E. Colorado 5 minutes, while giving the NRA ONE SENTENCE!
------------------
Going Nowhere?
Join Me There! Enjoy your stay!
