TexasCHLforum.com

Tonight 12/9, 9pm on National Geographic


"In a recreation scene, Officer Richard Decoatsworth was shot in the face durning a routine questioning stop on September 24, 2007."


http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/s ... s/06195_00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's gonna be unbiased am I right?

The short vid sounds a big biased to me :(

But ill watch and see.

It certainly won't be pro-gun but I expect NG to give an even examination of both sides.

Just watched it.

There were a couple of minor factual errors and some distorted statistics. I considered it biased, but not grossly so. They did show the basic tenets of both sides of the argument. What they could easily have done and didn't do was show violent crime statistics per capita for the states with little gun regulation versus those with strict gun laws. It would have been an easy transition from the segment where they were showing the map of castle doctrine states. All in all it was fairly well done and there was a bunch of cool hardware.

Alas I don't have NG on my cable so I'll have to wait for it to show up on the interwebs.

I thought it was somewhat bias'ed. They seemed to lean more towards the dark side of guns.. Most of what seemed to show the other side of guns, it leaned more towards the hard core fanatics, the odd guy who likes full auto firearms. The only positive thing I saw was their following of the woman that started thinking about her and her family's well being after someone broke into their house, then showing her actually shopping for a firearm, and shooting at a range.. The rest, it was the truth, but they showed more of the dark side than the good side.. Very few examples of people with firearms protecting themselves in life threatening situations.

I don't have NG channel either.

The online clip was more than just "somewhat" biased, it could even be considered grossly so.

First, the voiceover (Peter Coyote? Check his bonafides on guns) in the clip states that, and this is based on what people will hear, guns can be legally bought FOR the black market. Yes, he says "lawfully bought," and then stolen, or legally purchased from dealers.

If it's for the black market, it can't be a legal purchase from a dealer.

And then he goes on with the script about how tough it is to buy a gun in CA, and it's much easier in VA where you can buy one handgun a month if you pass a background check, and it's even easier in TX where you can buy as many as you want, and note carefully that the implication, because it is unstated while the other two examples are explicitly stated, the implication is that in TX you don't have to pass a background check.

My impression is that this was scripted by the Brady bunch. National Geographic has had an anti-gun policy for decades, and the Geographic Society right with it, so this treatment doesn't surprise me one bit. I gave up my subscription in the 70s just for that reason.

The big reason the language is not vitriolic, that it seems only a "little" biased, is that they have the frog in the pot and are just slowly turning the heat up. In my experience, being a little biased is about equivalent to being a little pregnant, it's a binary choice, you either are or you are not.

Things I didn't like at all:
They only showed "evil black guns" that were collected from the thugs on the streets. Out of all of the guns that they claim are in storage as evidence,they only brought out the scary looking guns.
They interviewed a couple of kooks for the representation of gunowners.
The Philly Police all had a seriously biased anti-gun attitude.

Other than those things, and some flawed statistics, it wasn't terrible-just biased to the anti-gun side of the debate, IMO.
JL

jimlongley wrote:.

And then he goes on with the script about how tough it is to buy a gun in CA, and it's much easier in VA where you can buy one handgun a month if you pass a background check, and it's even easier in TX where you can buy as many as you want, and note carefully that the implication, because it is unstated while the other two examples are explicitly stated, the implication is that in TX you don't have to pass a background check.

That was one of the things I considered to be a factual error. Like most distortions of the truth it was done by omission rather than an outright falsehood. There was another line that made me giggle when they were doing the segment on the Greek guy that shoots with his kids. The statement was something along the lines of

"If his guns were stolen they could likely end up in the hands of criminals."

Yeah...ok...obviously if they were stolen they would be in the hands of a criminal at that very moment.

wilder wrote:
Yeah...ok...obviously if they were stolen they would be in the hands of a criminal at that very moment.

That is exactly what my wife said...
JL

A show obviously put together by people without much direct knowledge of guns, and their ignorance showed. NatGeo should should have hired a pro gun consultant to ferret out the factual errors and bias. But then, Nat Geo people probably aren't the kind of people to talk to that kind of person. The topic was not one that could be reasonably covered by merely profiling a few gun owners and the Philadelphia PD. A cheap shot at ratings.

I noticed a bit of anti-gun bias as well as some innuendo and half truths; e.g., gun purchases in Texas, number of people carrying concealed guns, etc. Those items could both be clarified with requirements of each, etc. I also question the number of gun related deaths to both adults and children without discussion as to the who, when, what and why. As to the Greek gun owner - I guess they could have got a gun owner who was prettier?

Did y'all notice who the BG's were in nearly every instance? I did. Did y'all also notice the 5 minute commercials every other 5 minutes in the last half of the program? Overall, it was about as fair as it's going to get unless the NRA or other gun supporting entity puts it on.

Oldgringo wrote:Overall, it was about as fair as it's going to get unless the NRA or other gun supporting entity puts it on.

You really think the NRA would put on a "fair" tv program?

I assure you it would also be biased, just biased in the opposite direction.

mr.72 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Overall, it was about as fair as it's going to get unless the NRA or other gun supporting entity puts it on.

You really think the NRA would put on a "fair" tv program?

I assure you it would also be biased, just biased in the opposite direction.

That's right, Binky. It would be biased in the correct direction - as I see it. If you have a point, please share it with this forum