TexasCHLforum.com

Here is a good read about the Media and their anti-gun slant....

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org ... 070827.pdf

I said this in another thread, but i'll say it again here:

Hanlon's Razor wrote: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I don't think the media is evil; I think it's stupid. And short-sided.

Many give the media a bad rap for having a liberal (or conservative) bias, abut I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Most media outlets have a COMMERCIAL bias, meaning, they will run stories that'll generate viewership.

Turn down your IQ and think of these two headlines.

"WASHINGTON DC GUN BAN STRUCK DOWN IN COURTS: ARE YOU IN DANGER FROM GUN CRIME? FIND OUT BY WATCHING CHANNEL 2 NEWS AT TEN!"

or.

"The washington DC gun ban was overturned in district court today. We have a round table panel discussing what this can mean for the country at large; both good AND bad. Tonight at 11."

Of course, you're going to have mouthbreathers tuning into that first news show. Most news media know they have to pack the viewers in, and that first story will do it moreso than the 2nd story will.

I also don't like these whiny press releases that media watchdog outlets put out.

We all know the media sucks. What can we do about it? That's what *I* want to know.

"What can we do about it? That's what *I* want to know."

Don't support them. Call their advertisers and tell them you will not support a company that advertises with them.
If enough people did that, their tune would change.
But sadly, too many people don't care.

Dan

I've often heard the ". . . don't ascribe to malice what you can blame on stupidity . . . " line in reference to the media and guns, but I quit believing it back around 1994.

When the Clinton AWB was being debated, Tom Brokaw at NBC news ran a story about the proposed ban on "semi-automatic" firearms while running a video clip of a machine gun being fired.

NBC received numerous complaints - including one from the NRA - and acknowledged their mistake, but refused to broadcast a correction.

And then, a couple of weeks later, knowing full well the deceptive nature of the video - Brokaw & company did it again.

Media errors on firearms have been pointed out a great many times, and yet the same "errors" keep recurring . . . at some point, you can no longer simply excuse them as mistakes.

Which leaves bias and malice as the only reasonable explanations.

Which begs the question - we know they're getting this wrong because we're aware of the real facts . . . but what else are they getting wrong about things we're not personally familiar with?

Nitrogen is right on the mark with regard to local news. I honestly think it's ignorance. I don't watch the local news regularly, but I do record it in case there's a big story I want to go back and see. Those people are just feeding the masses whatever they think will keep them glued to the set for 30 minutes.
But the national network news shows - ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN all have a definite anti-gun slant to their reporting, and they know what they are doing. So those of us who want balanced reporting of actual news find it in other sources - Fox News, for one. McNeil-Lehrer on PBS is actually about as objective an any in the business, from what I've seen.
There are so many places to get "information" blasted at you 24 hours a day, anyone can find a source that tells them what they are comfortable hearing.

What we can do about media?? USE IT like our opponets.

One our organizations (NRA and the like) could learn from our anti-gun groups how to play the game. As per example using questions to put thoughts in the audiences mind. The questions you here asked by / to reporters sound stupid but are placed for a reason.

After the VT shooting spree anti gun groups started asking a lot of questions that had obvious answers, such as "Why did they allow students to have a gun on campus?" The anti-gun groups know the answer and they also know that if the general public hears the question often enough the metal image is formed that nothing is done to prevent people from bringing guns on campus, this results in the general public wanting something done to prevent guns from being brought on campus.


Pro gun groups could have asked, even though we know the answer, "Why didn’t any students with a CHL stop the shooter?? “ We are too polite in NOT wanting to imply it was VT's fault so many died because they refused to allow the students the ability to defend them selves. In short because we (pro gun folks) don't counter the extreme implications made by our opponents with equally sensational implications of our own, we our losing.

Consider, an interview with one person blaming VT for not letting students carry guns, debating with a person blaming VT because they allow guns in dormitories, would draw an audience.


We are playing the political game by the wrong set of rules. Reasonable people know there’s nothing that can be done to prevent a person from going insane and doing deadly things, it is the unreasonable people we need to target, they are ones that alter the balance.

Media bias against guns

What! When did that happen?


Seriously, no question... that a largely liberal news media has an agenda here.

While I concede there is a certain amount of ignorance among the media concerning firearms, isn't it their responsibility as journalists to study up on the subject before putting it in print or on the airwaves?

If I were a journalist, I would strive to make certain my reporting was factual. To do anything less is irresponsible... if not embarrassing.

An "editorial" would be one thing.....(when stated as such), but all too often a "news report" is not a factual rendering of the accounts....but a thinly veiled opinion/editorial. Pretty sad.

For the most part.... it happens because it remains unchallenged.

I personally think the major media is Liberal and slant their stories that way. Yes, they are out to sell their product. However, I am a Conservative and not just a person who believes in the 2A. Every story I see not only supports leftists views but does not include facts about a story that proves or supports the Conservative side unless the evidence is released by popular Conservatives or the one cable news channel that ever gets close to "Fair and Balanced". It is not just guns and gun owners that are lied about and the population manipulated. It is EVERY conservative issue. So many claim big business bias as example of a "Right" slanted media without considering that many major businesses are Leftists owned and run. So, in fact, the Liberal media is supporting a Liberal business.

Second Amendment rights are a conservatives friend. As are every other Constitutional right. Any media group that supports one and not all have a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. That is, they read it to mean what they want it to mean no matter what it says. "Liberal" interpretation of the COTUS is Liberalism concerning guns or any right we fight to conserve in the social arena.

As someone in the TV news business (hence the tvone), it's ignorance, not bias. As I discussed with a reporter a few months ago about the inaccuracies of a story around a shooting, he saw little or no difference between semi auto and full auto and didn't think the difference was factually relevant. Time is also a factor in local news. Gone are the days when you have days to completely research a story. Breaking news is written in minutes, and may be researched later. Also, many times the information is received directly from a LEO spokesperson that is using the wrong terminology. (and they can't be wrong )

Network news DOES have the time to fully research a story, and they have no excuse for factually errors.

I have seen it stated that a few years ago a poll of media people nationwide found 80% voted Democrat in the previous election.
I don't have a cite for this, anyone?