Media Bias

Of Arms and the Law brings us the story of Jake Tapper, an ABC news reporter charged with "handling" firearms issues.  But with the news media claiming so hard to be unbiased, it's interesting that they hired him without disclosing his past work history... including as a staffer for Handgun Control, Inc.

I just finished reading this very disturbing article, "More Newspapers Drop Gun Classifieds", about a type of gun control that's happening throughout the country, right under our noses, and nobody seems to care. Major newspapers are opting to refuse classified advertisements for gun sales from anyone who isn't a licensed dealer. Are they going to restrict ads for antiques painted with lead paint, next? Or first have an item certified by the Gestapo that it's not stolen property? What about making people get a car certified before listing it so we all know exactly what's wrong with it, making it harder for the seller to lie about it?

The Gray Lady of American newspapers is red with embarrassment caused by reporter Jayson Blair, who admitted that many of his stories involved invention or plagiarism. Some New York Times reporters have expressed concern that the exposure of so many bogus stories over such a long period of time from such a respected newspaper could cause readers of American newspapers to doubt the credibility of what they read. On gun-control issues, those doubts are well-merited; the Times's credibility when it comes to guns is about equal to that of the National Enquirer's reporting on celebrity romances: Some of it is true, a large part is false, and much of the rest is presented in a significantly misleading way.

Imagine a world in which one of its most dangerous products is exempt from consumer-protection laws. Imagine a world in which the makers and sellers of that product are immune from civil lawsuits related to that product.

The first scenario is already the case; the second is close to happening, right here in America.

When consumer-protection laws were developed, the gun lobby convinced Congress to exempt guns from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That means your child's toy gun is subject to greater regulation than a real gun.

Once again the media exposes its' ignorance. Anyone who thinks teddy bears are less regulated than firearms hasn't actually looked at the law -- but they could probably get an idea of the truth by treating a handgun like they would a teddy bear. They could give their children handguns. Those children could play with the handguns and take them whereever they go. They could buy a handgun without a federal background check. They could carry the handgun in their pocket without a permit. And they could get arrested and jailed for all of these things.

Guns - specifically assault weapons: We concur generally with President Bush's position in support of a ban on the sale and possession of truly automatic (assault) weapons - e.g., those weapons that fire multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled but once, and keep firing until the trigger is released or the magazine spent.

Revolvers, semi-automatics, rifles, and shotguns for self-defense and hunting, with instant background checks at time of purchase, are one thing. Actual fully automatic assault weapons (as opposed to so-called assault weapons that are not fully automatic) are something else entirely, with little justification for possession by - or sale to - anyone other than the military and law enforcement authorities. What everyday citizen among us needs an assault weapon any more than he needs a machine gun, flame-thrower, bazooka, or tank?

More press misinformation. How do they deceive us? Let me count the ways...

1. President Bush has noted support for the Assault Weapons Ban, which concerns semiautomatic firearms. By talking about "true" assault weapons, the paper gives the impression that Bush supports a ban on "true" assault weapons and not semiautomatic firearms.
2. They continue to sow confusion between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle". The former is a semiautomatic rifle that looks ugly; the latter is a fully-automatic military weapon.
3. They claim to support "revolvers, semi-automatics, rifles, and shotguns for self-defense and hunting".
4. They don't even clarify whether they support or oppose the current law.

It is well documented that the media elite are hostile to Second Amendment rights. That hostility is now taking shape in a direct effort to influence the way American children are taught about civil liberties. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program now with Bill Moyers has included on its Web site (www.pbs.org/now/classroom/gun.html) an extensive "lesson plan" for teachers to instruct their high school students about the Second Amendment. Its title is the first sign that objectivity will not be a paramount goal: "Gun Control and Terrorism: Laws or Loopholes." While the plan arguably has a paper-thin veneer of balance, an examination of the materials recommended as resources and the links provided to information sources quickly reveals that this "plan" has an ulterior motive: to promote the view that there is no individual right to bear arms.

Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne has been "busted" for faking demonstrations on a CNN segment about "assault weapons." Misleading the public into thinking "firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons," Jenne, who knows better, had a deputy deploy a select-fire AK-47 (not covered by the '94 gun ban, but regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act) for the cameras.

The New York Times has suffered a major black eye with revelations that one of its reporters made up events, facts, or engaged in plagiarism some 50 times. Yet, the Times has won praise for owning up to this problem, and in doing so may seem to have put the controversy behind it. Unfortunately, this pattern of reporting goes much deeper than the Times admits. As an example, take the major 20,000 word series on "rampage killings" the Times published during 2000.

Recently a prominent British politician, a noisy opponent of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was found to have been paid large sums of money by Iraq. One would think that this discovery would lead to a search for other anti-war activists who might have received bribes. One would be wrong.

The media has made an incredible amount of noise about how a New York Times reporter pilfered other writer's material and made up outright fabrications in a whole series of news stories he did for what many people consider the nation's premier newspaper. The only people who weren't shocked, it seems, was the American public. Why? Because on a daily basis we see outright lies and prejudice in the media, including the so-called "prestigious" media, those who are supposed to be above this type of bias.

Does the gun-control debate have any connection with the reality of guns in our society? Author John Lott suggests that the answer is "no". On Monday, May 19th, at the American Enterprise Institute where he is a resident scholar, Mr. Lott addressed an interested gathering on the subject of his latest book, The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything Youve Heard about Gun Control is Wrong.

Denials of media bias seem to have become more frequent or more vehement lately. Some in the media try to dismiss the accusation as old stuff. But the only real question is whether it is true, because the truth doesn't wear out with the passage of time. Media bias does not consist simply in the often cited fact that nine out of ten journalists voted for Democrats, in a country that is very closely divided between the two political parties. If, as many journalists claim, they do their job in a professional way, what they do in the voting booth is their own business.

A noted defender of the Second Amendment has authored a new book contending that much of the news coverage of the mainstream media is slanted in favor of gun control. John Lott Jr., resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, has authored the book "The Bias Against Guns ý Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong."

The Sunday Herald, a Scottish newspaper, is accusing gun-rights activists of conducting a hate campaign. But the facts don't stand up to scrutiny.

Here's what the article has to say about the "hate campaign":

A Scottish-BASED couple who launched a campaign for gun control in Turkey after their two-year-old son was shot dead have become hate figures for US pro-gun groups.

David and Ozlem Grimason, whose son Alistair was killed in 2003 as he slept in his pram in a Turkish cafe, have been targeted in a web campaign by the American gun lobby.

One posting describes them as "idiots" who should stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. Another labels them as "emotionalists [who] want to force Turkey into the same miserable gun control failure that was implemented [post- Dunblane] in the UK".

So what do we have here? We have a couple living in Scotland but who are apparantly Turkish nationals. (How exactly does that work?) Their child is killed by gunshot in Turkey, and so, from Scotland, they are trying to pressure the Turkish government to implement gun control. As a result, they are labeled "idiots" and "emotionalists".

I confess that I don't find those labels at all inaccurate. They are called idiots because gun control doesn't work. They are called emotionalists because they are emoting about their personal tragedy rather than acting rationally. Nor do I find those labels particularly offensive. The couple were not addressed in that manner because of their race, religion, or any similar characteristic; they were addressed in that manner because of their actions.

Moreover, the couple is guilty of exactly the same thing:

Yesterday David Grimason told the Sunday Herald that the couple had found the campaign upsetting but that they may now lend their weight to the fight to introduce more restrictive gun laws in America. "America would be a challenge," he said. "The country needs a lot of help. But how do you change the minds of lunatics?"

Does he realize that he just did exactly what he accused the "gun lobby" of doing? I doubt it.

He added: "To see people agreeing that guns were good was a very hard thing to take, especially since a gun took our son away. It was a disgusting thing to read. Ozlem read it at the time and was also angry."

No, a criminal took your son away when that criminal shot your son. The gun did not fire by itself. As for disgust, well, I find the use of a newspaper to publish smears and accusations against "the gun lobby" disgusting. I'm a member of "the gun lobby". I didn't take the opportunity to call these people idiots or emotionalists earlier. But I've now been lumped into "the gun lobby" and blamed for the actions of individuals.

Notice a pattern here? This couple started a high-profile gun control effort for a country they do not reside in. They are labeled idiots and emotionalists as individuals on the basis of their actions. In other words -- they asked for the publicity and attention they got.

Yet in return they accuse "the gun lobby" as a whole. It's the same pattern of thinking as that behind gun control. Rather than blame the criminal who shot their son, they choose to blame not just the gun the criminal used, but all guns, everywhere, and all members of the "gun culture".

If the "gun culture" was an ethnic or religious minority group, the news media would call that prejudice. But it's OK to hate gun owners, apparantly.

But that's OK. Now that I've become aware of this gun lobby "hate" campaign, I'll join it. I think gun control is idiotic, and I think this couple are idiots and emotionalists for trying to push it on a country that has enshrined firearms rights in its founding documents, especially a country that they do not reside in.

"I'd love these people to come and stand at the graveside of a child that had been shot. It's just insensitive."

Trying to take away the rights of people who have done nothing wrong is a lot more than just insensitive. Could I cordially invite the Grimasons to stand with me at the graveside of a child who was killed because no one had a gun to protect him? A woman who was raped because her state does not allow her to carry a gun for self defense? We can play dueling victims with violins all day. I would bet that gun control costs more lives in the end, though -- probably without needing to invoke Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

After Alistair was shot, his parents launched a high- profile campaign to change Turkey's gun laws and violent culture. They collected 200,000 signatures for a petition that condemned the country's gun culture, which experts believe leads to more than 12,000 crimes every year, and were instrumental in persuading the Turkish authorities to increase the sentences for gun violence.

So, were those Scottish signatures or Turkish signatures? Or signatures of Turks living in Scotland? I don't really suppose it matters. Except that Turkish law is more properly the concern of people living in Turkey rather than people living in Scotland.

As for gun crimes, violence, and gun culture.. I don't know what "experts" the paper is referring to, but experts in the US say that gun control doesn't work. I don't see anything wrong with long sentences for violent crimes, but I see a lot wrong with long sentences for violent crimes only if they were committed with guns. Dead is dead.

So what exactly did this "hate campaign" consist of?

But the couple's actions have enraged the US gun lobby, which has long supported the right of individuals to bear arms and believes that "foreigners" should not campaign for firearms restrictions, despite the fact that Ozlem Grimason is a Turkish national. The website of Keep And Bear Arms, a self-declared "grassroots movement for the people" that demands the repeal of all gun laws, includes a number of scathing attacks on the couple.

Aha! The truth comes out. We don't have a "hate campaign". We have individuals posting comments to a gun-advocacy website. In America, we call that free speech. It's a vital part of our culture of liberty, because it means that the media cannot play the role of gatekeeper, choosing selectively what information to print and what information to conceal. In America, everyone can advocate for their point of view and call their opponents idiots in public.

There's a reason we tossed the British out of our country, and this is a big part of it. The editorial doesn't even allege people harassing the Grimasons directly (whether by telephone, email, or in person). All it has are inoffensive comments from spokesmen and a website that allows anyone to post their views. Not a single alleged threat. Some "hate campaign" this is.

Want to give them a piece of your mind? The author's email address is Paul.Hutcheon@sundayherald.com. and the paper's editor is editor@sundayherald.com Do remember to keep it polite; if they call normal political discourse in the US a "hate campaign" they won't react well to anything stronger.

I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows 'rights' to exist at all.

Either you believe that, or you don't, and you must decide.

Good speech. And as we collectively digest the Rathergate Report, it's good to remember that the credibility problem of the press extends to a lot more than forged documents.

Sen. John Kerry has gotten the white-glove treatment from the press, garnering more praise from journalists than any other presidential candidate in the last quarter-century, according to a new analysis of almost 500 news stories released today by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

"It's not just that John Kerry has gotten better press than President Bush before this election, he's gotten better press than anyone else since 1980. That's significant," said Bob Lichter, director of the D.C.-based nonpartisan research group.

At this point, getting scientific knowledge about the extent of the media bias towards Kerry and against Bush should not surprise anyone, but the implications of that discrepency are interesting; the last time there was such a large gap, the Republican incumbent got a landslide.

"It's frightening to see how much weaponry they have for sale," said Susannah Michalson, a Sarasota resident and gun-control proponent. "For people concerned about the safety of children and human life it's a shock."

This is a typical scare article with little basis in fact (besides the existance of the store in question, anyway). The store sells fully-automatic weapons legally, which includes extensive federal regulations on who can buy the weapons (in many cases limited to law enforcement only). We're not talking about a crime problem or an accidental shooting problem here. This is a very small, very sophisticated market. So why the scare tactics?.

Still, gun control advocates don't like the idea that machine guns are accessible at all. "This organization believes that machine guns have no place in American society," said Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "They're necessary for the military and law enforcement. But civilians don't need weapons that fire automatic rounds and do terrible damage. "Just the idea that a weapon, that can kill dozens of people, could get into the hands of a child or a disgruntled employee is scary," he said.

Just the idea that a weapon that can kill dozens of people could get into the hands of a disgruntled police officer or Marine is scary! And yet the military doesn't have this sort of problem. The police don't have this sort of problem. And the normal American citizens who own these weapons don't have that sort of problem either. The not-so-honorable spokesman is fantasizing about a scenario that would support his desire to ban all firearms from the United States -- fantasizing with no basis in fact.

A new survey commissioned by a gun control group shows that state residents overwhelmingly support tougher gun laws, including a requirement that all firearms be registered and all gun owners be licensed.

"There is a clear disconnect between what the people want and what many legislators are willing to give," said Ron Pinciaro, co-executive director of the Connecticut Collaborative for Education Against Gun Violence, which paid for the poll. "If legislators are listening to their constituents, we should see this situation improve in the coming session."

Since when do polls paid for by advocacy groups warrant news stories? This particular story even has quotes from idiot politicians promising to take action. Remember -- follow the money.

The gun control freaks are giving an award to the episode of West Wing (already a radically left-wing program) that featured a fictional account of a concealed-carry permit holder shooting back at a robber in a church and hitting a young girl. This is a blatantly biased portrayal under any circumstances, but the true absurdity is not evident until you realize that this sort of thing doesn't happen! You want to talk about police shooting the wrong person by mistake, that's one thing; it happens. In fact, it happens five times more often than what this episode depicts.

"Mary is an excellent art critic who writes with authority and passion. Unfortunately, this piece crossed the line that separates a review from a column of personal opinion."

I wrote in about this "review" when it was first published, and posted it here. Apparantly lots of other people did, too. The Star-Tribune has posted a selection of reader comments and a half-hearted apology from the managing editor (quoted above), along with some comments in defence of the review. While it's not a complete mea culpa, it's more than newspapers often bother to express.

Believe it or not, this article -- riddled with errors and misinformation -- was actualy published in the Health section. This is what happens when doctors try to talk about things they don't have a clue about. It's understandable that they are emotionally involved in the issue, since they see the people who have been injured by firearms close up and personal, but that doesn't excuse their attempts to proselytize their own ignorance.

The Associated Press (AP) has adopted the word ?militia? to refer to Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Not only are Hamas and Islamic Jihad on both the U.S. and U.N. list of international terrorist organizations, but all three share a platform of targeting and killing civilians.

As the article goes on to point out, the proper definition of militia is not a terrorist organization, but an "army composed of ordinary citizens... subject to call for service in an emergency." In other words, militias are defensive, not offensive, and operate (when called up) as an army, not a terrorist group. A good modern analogy for "militia" would be the United States National Guard, which is a force of ordinary citizens subject to being called up in emergencies (whether national or local). In fact, we regularly see the National Guard being called out to deal with hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, and other natural disasters; it's not just a military function.

Why does this matter? Because the Associated Press writes stories that are syndicated nationwide, and they are associating militia groups with terrorists. The risk of mistakenly targeting harmless or even beneficial militia groups as "domestic terrorists" has never been greater, and has no rational justification. The terrorists we are at war with are not Americans and never have been.

It's worth noting that the National Guard, while a militia, is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

Despite the ruling against the group, the judge found that its lawyers had established "clear and convincing evidence" that gun retailers are guilty of "careless practices."

Manufacturers take too few measures, he wrote, "to eliminate or even appreciably reduce the public nuisance they individually and collectively have created." Among the "obvious steps," he said, would be requiring retailers to ban multiple sales to the same customers.

CBS quoting from a ruling in which a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the NAACP about "disproportionate harm" allegedly done to the black population of New York City by allegedly negligent manufacturer policies. Note that reading their reporting and quoting, it's easy to be confused about what actually happened: the NAACP lost, without even a trial; case dismissed for lack of evidence.

Clearly, the judge felt obligated to dismiss the case, since the NAACP could not show it had been especially harmed, but sympathized with their case with respect to thinking the gun manufacturers should police their dealers. In reality, of course, gun dealers are federally licensed and have an entire federal agency devoted to harassing them; if the federal government would do its job (prosecuting the dealers who break the law) then there would not even be an issue. Asking the manufacturers to do the government's job when they don't have anywhere near the resources or information required is just silly.

But it's apparantly easier than passing more gun control laws.

The author of the most comprehensive and controversial research on civilian use of firearms against criminals defended his latest work in Washington on Monday. Dr. John Lott is an economist and former Yale University School of Law researcher best known for his book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. In that book, he detailed research arguing "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths." (See related story.)

I don't watch the John Walsh show since he did his hatchet job on women who use guns to protect themselves. But as I flipped through the channels today, I saw a brief mention of the word "guns" on the Walsh Show and just had time to see a text blurb at the bottom of the screen claiming, "almost 40,000 people a year are killed by guns." Of course, this is another lie.

According to the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the number of people who died from firearms-related injuries in the last reported year was 28,663.

Of those, 16,586 (57%+) were suicides.