Playboy, are you playing some kind of provocative game here? Do you really think that On the Media broadcast was an unbiased presentation?
I'm pretty sure I don't want to go through the whole transcription just to play along or to prove a point. So I'll just start with the opening question and its answer. Emphasis in bold is mine.
BOB GARFIELD: And I'm Bob Garfield. The right to bear arms, that's what the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees. Right? Maybe. On March 19th the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that likely will determine an issue that has been settled in the court since 1939, but not in the public policy debate.
The issue decided in 1939 had and has nothing at all to do with the current issue. This is explained in the comments at the NPR linked site. The Miller case was the first time since its ratification that any question about the Second Amendment was, or needed to be, addressed by the Supreme Court.
So, using the NPR standard, 1939 minus 1788. That's 152 years of settled law at the time of Miller, and until now, 221 years before the question of the
individual's Right to Arms has required confirmation.
Skip to the substantive response...
...And this was really a shocker. And the Supreme Court really had to look at this issue very, very closely for the first time in 70 years.
Same explanation. The answer doesn't address the verity of the question's context. The question has an erroneous assumption. The response accepts the (erroneous) assumption. Then the expression of surprise that we dummies didn't realize the truth of the obvious ( but erroneous) assumption. Well it is NPR, they'll set us straight in the rest of the segment building on that same, false Major Premise.
The public policy debate referred to, I suggest, is that initiated in modern times by Brady, VPC, or whatever range of anti-gun organizations you want. But I digress.
The segment is outright propaganda. It gets worse as the segment continues, as you must know, Playboy. But if you'd care to support why the broadcast was an even handed, clear, account of any substantive issue around the Court and what's going on. I'd love to hear your argument.
Here's the
transcript.