Media Slant Changing on Gun Issues

USP45

New member
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2001/1/29/103220
Media Slant Changing on Gun Issues
Dr. Michael S. Brown
Jan. 29, 2001

American news organizations have been accused of having an anti-gun bias for decades. A study by the Media Research Center, for example, claimed a 10 to 1 bias in stories broadcast on network evening news programs during 1999. There are, however, some indications that this situation is slowly changing.
During the 2000 election, media outlets devoted an unusual amount of attention to the viewpoints of gun owners and gun rights organizations. An unprecedented number of these stories showed a distinct effort, not always successful, to avoid bias and present both sides of the issue fairly. In some cases, it was mildly comical to watch on-air reporters and pundits attempt to neutralize their usual slant.

Even the often maligned National Rifle Association received more balanced treatment than normal. NRA president Charlton Heston was the focus of much media coverage as he crisscrossed the country prior to the election. Reporters seemed to be in awe of his dramatic speeches which were delivered to large crowds of passionate gun owners.

After NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre stood up to Bill Clinton early in the campaign season, he was invited to appear on several television programs. The organization's operations and internal conflicts were covered in depth by ABC news in a one hour special report that was amazingly fair until the final segment, when Peter Jennings revealed his personal bias in a big way. The spectacular rise in NRA membership (to 4.2 million) was mentioned constantly during the campaign by numerous sources.

This trend seems to be continuing beyond the election season. After the recent murders in Wakefield, Massachusetts, the first opinions printed by several newspapers emphasized the fact that strict gun laws in that state simply disarmed the victims without hindering the killer.

Although this reduction in the media's anti-gun bias is far from complete, it is interesting to speculate on the cause. Perhaps journalists have developed a guilty conscience about their ethical lapses. Perhaps they have finally realized that a mountain of evidence shows the futility and counterproductive results of gun control laws. But a somewhat more cynical explanation may be the simple desire of all journalists to tell a good story.

Imagine the task of a reporter assigned to research and write a story on some aspect of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side there is the usual cast. Start with the limousine liberals like Teddy Kennedy, Rosie O'Donnell and Diane Feinstein. They repeat the same tired, hypocritical message urging passage of laws to outlaw gun ownership for ordinary people while everyone knows they have guns of their own or are protected by armed bodyguards.

You also have the anti-gun organizations like Handgun Control Inc., which represents the views of its ultra-rich benefactors, and the insipid Million Mom March, which uses their own massive donations from wealthy foundations in a contrived effort to generate interest among American soccer moms and support for Democratic Party candidates. >From a reporter's point of view, these groups are just plain boring.

Now consider the interesting stories and fascinating characters on the other side of the issue:

In New Jersey, a group of African-American shooting enthusiasts started the Tenth Cavalry Gun Club. They are so successful that they are now opening chapters in other areas. Stories about this group explode the myth that gun enthusiasts must be white, as do stories about the group of Filipino shooters called the 1521 Sportsman Association.

In Nevada, Dr. Ignatius Piazza is creating a city in the desert that will be built around a complex of shooting ranges. Since every family will be armed to the teeth, it will probably be the safest and most polite city in America. To promote his enterprise he offers popular classes to teach anyone, even soccer moms, to shoot actual Uzi submachine guns.

In Merced, California, there was the dramatic story of the pitchfork murders. In this sad case, three small children were murdered in their home by a madman wielding a pitchfork. Their older sister, who was capable of using the family rifle for self defense, was unable to reach it because her father believed he was required by law to keep it locked up.

In almost any part of the country you can find dramatic stories of women who have aided their recovery from rape or assault by learning the art of armed self defense. They vow that they will never be victimized again. Some of them have used their new skills to survive a second assault. There are powerful, emotional stories here. Women empowering other women by passing on firearms skills is becoming a major theme in the gun culture. Others are rediscovering their heritage as outdoorswomen by learning to shoot and hunt.

Stories like this are becoming easier to find as authors and reporters uncover these dramatic events. A good example is a book by Robert A. Waters: "The Best Defense - Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm".

When the media filters out stories like these to satisfy their own bias, they are missing an opportunity to attract a larger audience.

The era of political correctness is slowly drawing to a close. Journalists who wish to stand out from their peers are finding an amazing variety of interesting stories within the politically incorrect American gun culture. In many cases their story proposals are spiked by editors and producers who still feel a political connection to the anti-gun lobby, but a growing number of positive stories about gun owners are appearing on the air or in print.

This trend will accelerate as a larger number of media outlets are forced to compete for the same audience. Control of television news divisions is passing from old-line liberal journalists to pragmatic businessmen who know that alienating (or boring) a large portion of the audience harms the bottom line.

The old anti-gun bias that has been a staple of American media culture for over 30 years is slowly fading as the nature of the business changes.

Although things are improving, this is not the time for gun rights activists to relax. Messages from viewers and readers will have more impact than ever as news executives search for clues to audience preferences.
 
Contact the reporter - it DOES matter!

This is exactly why I devote so much of my free time to writing the reporters and their editors - and beat the drum incessantly on this board for everyone to do the same.

When there's a gun article, pro or con, I write the reporter, and take the time to dig up the newsroom editor's address so he is cc'd.

If the gun article is pro-gun or even-handed (I realize this is in the eye of the beholder), I compliment them on their fair reporting and that I'm glad to see there's still some integrity and professionalism remaining in the press corps.

If it's an anti, I make sure I get the editor's address and sometimes even the publisher's. Then it's "no wonder people no longer trust the media, your article is a good example why . . ." time. I sometimes mention that the reporter's bias is an embarassment to the paper.

One email gets erased and written off as a nut. Five, 10, 20 of the same "unfair" emails on the article start crossing the screen and the higher-ups might take notice. They still might suspect it's a concerted effort, which is why it's essential, IMHO, to write your own thoughts and not a canned response. That extra effort counts.

Brown makes some good points. It may also be a recognition amongst some of the less agenda-driven publishers and editors that blatant anti-gun spin is counterproductive, and take their cues from the new regime in Washington.

I just watched a journalists' roundtable on C-Span. When they got to gun control a couple of the Washington types said that the Dems were shying away from the issue with only the hard core sticking to their rhetoric. This shift is also bound to filter into the papers.

One ominous point they brought out was that the new Dems are telling the Party to write off the rural areas and stick to suburbia to push the anti-gun platform. The thing to watch is if the big city papers mute their attacks or slightly shift gears.

Let's hope that Brown's aticle is prophetic.
 
Another Angle

The most dramatic media shift is just another example of the media following the lead of their fellow leftists. The hot talk is not about "gun control" with its concurrent focus on banning and registration and locking guns up to the point of unusability. No, the new buzz word is "gun safety." This means that guns which to not fit certain standards (they call them "gun safety standards") are not to be sold (ie. ban). This means that to save just one child, all guns must be locked up, thus making them unusable for self defense. They also say that CCW is unsafe as well as any so-called AW. More restrictions. More bans. Nothing to justify it.

They only thing that has changed is the sales pitch.

The other problem is that many of us buy into it. I went to a shoot this weekend and found several people refer to their rifles as "assault weapons." Thank you Josh Sugarman and Madsion Avenue. A few there did not know that it was once just fine and dandy to buy guns through mail order catalogs and you didn't have to be an adult.

We must constantly educate ourselves, let alone the ignorant.

Rick
 
In Merced, California, there was the dramatic story of the pitchfork murders. In this sad case, three small children were murdered in their home by a madman wielding a pitchfork. Their older sister, who was capable of using the family rifle for self defense, was unable to reach it because her father believed he was required by law to keep it locked up.

In almost any part of the country you can find dramatic stories of women who have aided their recovery from rape or assault by learning the art of armed self defense. They vow that they will never be victimized again. Some of them have used their new skills to survive a second assault. There are powerful, emotional stories here. Women empowering other women by passing on firearms skills is becoming a major theme in the gun culture. Others are rediscovering their heritage as outdoorswomen by learning to shoot and hunt.

Stories like this are becoming easier to find as authors and reporters uncover these dramatic events. A good example is a book by Robert A. Waters: "The Best Defense - Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm".

When the media filters out stories like these to satisfy their own bias, they are missing an opportunity to attract a larger audience.

Please go to this thread if you would like to help Robert (aka bestdefense357 here on TFL) with his collection of Armed Self-Defense stories. Your help is needed to assure that this trend continues. We can make a difference in how our side is portrayed in the mainstream media, this article is proof!
 
We here in the good ol' USofA are privileged to have two media(s). The first media is what I call "Big Media" and these in general are those media outlets which pre-date the internet; outlets such as broadcast media, print daily papers and print periodicals. The second media is everything that has grown up since the internet became popular (call that mid-90's and later).

Back before the second media established its presence, Big Media could successfully twist, distort, or ignore whatever it was they picked. There was no readily available alternative channels of information to Joe Six-Pack. Now days Joe Six-Pack is likely web enabled and quite capable of ferreting out alternative information. In other words, Big Media could simply lie and no one could easily call them on it. No so today. Remember Drudge and Monica? Big Media (Newsweek) elected to sit on the article until Drudge broke the story.

Anyhow, sooner or later Big Media had to figure out their credibility would eventually suffer. I kinda think that is what is happening. People lie (deliberately or inadvertently) and do not like to get caught. A secondary effect is the secondary media may have caused Big Media to tighten up its act. A reporter can not afford to get sloppy in reporting without the second media calling them publically on their failure.

What am I saying???? The free market is having its effect. I personally get NONE of my news from Big Media. I look at Big Media only for the entertainment value. Mostly I use secondary media for my current events effect.
 
I guess I'm too cynical. I just figure the major media are a bunch of front-runners, who will now start cozying up to the new administration in a variety of ways. They need to be insiders and cultivate relationships, so they generally bend a bit toward whatever side is in power. The more public support Bush gathers, the more the media will come along. Facts and principles have little to do with it.
 
This sounds hard to believe, but in many cases, reporters from the big cities really don't know that people use guns for positive purposes, like self-defense. Because of my book, I've been contacted by reporters from ABC, CBS, A&E, and Lifetime Television, and reviewers/reporters from major Eastern newspapers. They always want me to give them the name and contact information for an "attractive female victim who used guns to fight back and win."

Having read my book, these reporters always start the conversation by saying something like, "I never knew people used guns to defend themselves. Can you prove it?"

At that point, I provide documentary evidence via the internet that they can easily look up (i.e., like the stories we're collecting from Operation Self-Defense). Then I express to them my appreciation for trying to show "both sides of the story."

But the real key is the victims themselves. Once the reporter interviews the intended victim, their whole perspective changes. Several of the people I've written about were featured in broadcasts by the networks. Almost invariably, the reporter will let me know (after the interview) that they couldn't believe the brutality of criminals who would viciously assault helpless women, and they would once again marvel that never knew about these kinds of stories.

I know this sounds like something out of lalaland, but it's my opinion that they've been so brainwashed in college that they can't imagine a gun being used in a constructive manner.

It's also my opinion that Dr. Brown's article is accurate. There is a move to report these self-defense stories by some in the mainstream media.

It's long overdue, and they certainly haven't gotten to the point to where they're totally objective, but it's a beginning.

Robert

http://www.robertwaters.net
 
I don't agree with Dr. Brown

Sorry, but I don't really see where Dr. Brown is coming from.

The Media Research Center put endless hours into a truely credible report, while Brown seems only to cite a few instances, which are token at best.

I'll have to see a couple of year's worth of evidence before I'll buy into any change.

I think Brown should stop clicking the heels of his ruby red slippers together.

Regards
 
One thing I have learned from years of surfing gun forums is how pessimistic and (for lack of a better word) paranoid gun owners are. The sky is always falling, everyone is against us, and when speaking of anything that looks good you will quickly find a gun owner to point out the negative side and how it is going to come back to bite us.

With all that said, I REALLY hope that this article is correct.

In my experience, it seems to be true. I have seen reporting that has been more fair, and personally I have seen people backlash against anti-gun propaganda. I hear a lot of people these days speaking out AGAINST the anti-gun garbage. More and more people are coming to the realization that anti-gun laws don't disarms criminals, and don't stop crime. With Bush in the lead, and Ashcroft taking Reno's places, I think we will see a lot more studies surface that show the ineffectiveness of these gun laws. We are winning the masses with FACTS, and truth. Let's kee fighting.
 
DerGlockenpooper, I do hope you're right. We must live in different cultural sections of the country, since I've been playing defense for at least ten or fifteen years and things haven't changed. If nothing else, this last election cycle probably pulled down the curtain that hid the wizards like Donaldson and Brokaw.
But, while many of us turn to the internet for information that suits our needs (whether balanced or unbalanced), many others turn to outlets such as Rosie or Oprah. Jay Leno has an enormous effect on people's political views (I don't recall the percentage who said they took their cue from him, but it was staggering).

To gauge the effect of TV, just look at the results of the James Byrd dragging ad. In markets where that ad ran, less than 10% of blacks voted for Bush. In markets where it didn't run, 20% or more voted for Bush. I would like to hope that people are informed when they vote, but I just don't think that is so.

Dick
 
Back
Top