Firearms related, towards the middle of article.
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/19/24307.shtml
Journalists or Propagandists?
David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
Monday, May 19, 2003
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 are two reasons people don’t look for something. The first is that they don’t think they’ll find it. The second is that they’re afraid they will.
Is it possible that some American politicians or journalists received bribes? Don’t expect journalists to do the digging. Most of them shared anti-war, anti-administration sentiments. Why should they dig up dirt on those with whom they agreed?
What is the basic purpose of journalism? Why did reporters stop calling themselves that and insist on being called journalists? What’s wrong with being a reporter? Isn’t it a hard enough job to find and report the facts?
Is journalism a search for the facts, or a search for only those facts that further an agenda? Is journalism an independent profession, or merely a branch of politics?
Recent events at the New York Times shine a harsh light on this important problem. A journalist was fired after fabricating stories. In one case he plagiarized a story from another paper.
In another he claimed to have interviewed the father of captured soldier Jessica Lynch. He described fields visible from her father’s porch. In fact, they were not visible.
Stealing a story is a journalistic crime. But apparently the story was factual. And other than Mr. Lynch, who cares if his porch affords a view of fields or of an outhouse?
The Times may worry about journalistic etiquette, but we worry more about getting the facts we need to make informed decisions. Are we?
Perhaps some personal experiences will be of interest.
Some time ago, another leading newspaper claimed that a gun-control bill had been weakened and would not "take grenade launchers off the street."
I wrote the author, noting that both grenades and launchers were banned by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Possessing even the parts to construct one would subject a person to heavy penalties. In addition, they are virtually never used in crimes.
I added that I would send a $100 check to his favorite charity if he could show me where to buy a grenade launcher legally.
The author wrote back, claiming he was quoting an aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. He felt that since the quote was accurate, the facts need not be. That is, if the quote furthered the anti-gun agenda of the paper, he was satisfied to print it without stating that it was factually false. I kept my $100.
Soon after, the paper printed an article urging that a particular type of bullet be banned because it "exploded" in its victim and caused "unimaginable horrors."
I wrote and pointed out that exploding bullets have been banned since 1938. I added that I had seen no data showing that this ammunition was deadlier than other types.
An editor replied that I was "quibbling." After all, the bullets did expand. I retorted that if the editor ate a heavy meal, I hoped his belly expanded but did not explode. This shamed him into printing a brief correction – the only time I succeeded in having an error corrected by this paper.
Later the paper claimed that President Clinton was considering a law to prohibit the conversion of semiautomatic rifles to full automatic – that is, machine guns.
I wrote again, pointing out that automatic weapons had been severely regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 – hardly late news.
I added that mere possession of parts for an automatic weapon, even if they are not assembled and even if some parts are missing, subjects someone to 10 years in federal prison and a $10,000 fine. I included the phone number of the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which enforces firearms laws.
There was no correction. Instead, the paper printed a front-page story subtitled "Attempts to restrict automatic weapons … fall victim to give and take of politics."
That is, I pointed out a factual error and listed an impartial authority to verify my claim. The paper merely repeated the error – which therefore became a lie.
It’s difficult to be sure of being right. But it’s easy to be sure of being wrong – contradict yourself. Then you have to be wrong at least part of the time.
That’s what the paper did next. When laws to ban so-called assault weapons were being considered, the paper called them "weapons of choice" for criminals.
Later, when laws to ban inexpensive handguns called "Saturday night specials" were being considered, the paper asserted they were criminals’ "weapons of choice."
And now that the assault weapons ban is up for renewal, the paper again calls them "weapons of choice" for criminals and describes them as "automatic weapons."
If one questions the editors’ anti-gun agenda, this sequence of events removes all doubt. Whatever type of gun is being considered for prohibition, that is the type the editors declare is criminals’ "weapon of choice."
But what is the editors’ "weapon of choice"? It surely isn’t the truth. What do you call "errors" that are repeated after the facts are pointed out? I call them lies. And what do you call lies that further an agenda? I call them propaganda.
Nor is dishonesty confined to the subject of guns.
In an article on the Middle East, the paper printed a map showing the West Bank as part of Jordan. I phoned the editor, who insisted this was correct.
I phoned Washington information and got the State Department number. I asked for the Middle East desk. A helpful official verified that we consider the West Bank to be "occupied territory, status to be determined." We have done so not just since 1967, when Israel captured the West Bank, but ever since 1948, when Jordan occupied it.
This took about 10 minutes – apparently too long for an editor to take to verify his facts. I wrote the paper but got neither a reply nor a correction.
On another occasion, an article claimed that the homicide rate always rises after wars. I wrote, noting that the homicide rate was as likely to fall as to rise. Thus the homicide rate rose after World War I and Vietnam, but fell after World War II and Korea.
My letter was printed, but World War II was omitted – making it seem that the homicide rate rose after two wars but fell after only one. This falsely implied that the article was largely correct.
You recall that on 9/11, the president was in Florida. He took an unpredictable route back to Washington to keep Air Force One safe from a possible fifth suicide plane. This was described as "Bush fled." Now there’s objective reporting for you.
But when the paper’s staff evacuated the building because of a phony bomb threat, the article didn’t say "We fled."
Note that these "errors" are not random. They lie – in both senses of that word – in the direction of the editors’ biases.
The paper is anti-gun. All the "errors" are in the direction of claiming that guns or ammunition are more dangerous than they really are, or that items already illegal are still legal, so that more laws are needed.
Not one "error" claims that guns or ammunition are less dangerous than they really are, or that legal items are illegal, so that fewer laws are needed.
Similarly, the paper is anti-Israel. Map "errors" incorrectly show disputed areas as part of Jordan, never as part of Israel. Moreover, Israeli residents on the West Bank are called "settlers." But from 1948 to 1967, when the West Bank was occupied by Jordan, Jordanian residents were just "residents."
The paper is anti-military. So it claims that veterans are unstable and that the homicide rate always goes up after wars. The "errors" are never in the direction of exaggerating the benefits of military service.
And the paper is anti-Bush. When he takes an indirect route to return to his duty station in a time of danger, that’s "fleeing." But when they leave their duty station in a time of danger, that’s not "fleeing." Yeah, sure.
This doesn’t begin to describe the paper’s biased coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the effect of tax cuts on the economy, or other important topics.
Revealingly, when I pointed out yet another error about guns to an editor, he retorted, with pride in his voice, "We don’t know much about guns." To him, ignorance of a subject was no bar to writing about it extensively.
The basic problem is a desire to push a political and social agenda, as opposed to a passion for the truth. The New York Times scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Plagiarizing a story is wrong. So is describing a scene one hasn’t visited.
But what’s worse is slanting the news to suit an agenda. What’s more destructive to freedom is feeding citizens bogus "news" designed to influence them.
What we need are people who believe their job is to uncover facts, not fabricate them. What we need are fewer "journalists" and more reporters.
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/19/24307.shtml
Journalists or Propagandists?
David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
Monday, May 19, 2003
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 are two reasons people don’t look for something. The first is that they don’t think they’ll find it. The second is that they’re afraid they will.
Is it possible that some American politicians or journalists received bribes? Don’t expect journalists to do the digging. Most of them shared anti-war, anti-administration sentiments. Why should they dig up dirt on those with whom they agreed?
What is the basic purpose of journalism? Why did reporters stop calling themselves that and insist on being called journalists? What’s wrong with being a reporter? Isn’t it a hard enough job to find and report the facts?
Is journalism a search for the facts, or a search for only those facts that further an agenda? Is journalism an independent profession, or merely a branch of politics?
Recent events at the New York Times shine a harsh light on this important problem. A journalist was fired after fabricating stories. In one case he plagiarized a story from another paper.
In another he claimed to have interviewed the father of captured soldier Jessica Lynch. He described fields visible from her father’s porch. In fact, they were not visible.
Stealing a story is a journalistic crime. But apparently the story was factual. And other than Mr. Lynch, who cares if his porch affords a view of fields or of an outhouse?
The Times may worry about journalistic etiquette, but we worry more about getting the facts we need to make informed decisions. Are we?
Perhaps some personal experiences will be of interest.
Some time ago, another leading newspaper claimed that a gun-control bill had been weakened and would not "take grenade launchers off the street."
I wrote the author, noting that both grenades and launchers were banned by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Possessing even the parts to construct one would subject a person to heavy penalties. In addition, they are virtually never used in crimes.
I added that I would send a $100 check to his favorite charity if he could show me where to buy a grenade launcher legally.
The author wrote back, claiming he was quoting an aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. He felt that since the quote was accurate, the facts need not be. That is, if the quote furthered the anti-gun agenda of the paper, he was satisfied to print it without stating that it was factually false. I kept my $100.
Soon after, the paper printed an article urging that a particular type of bullet be banned because it "exploded" in its victim and caused "unimaginable horrors."
I wrote and pointed out that exploding bullets have been banned since 1938. I added that I had seen no data showing that this ammunition was deadlier than other types.
An editor replied that I was "quibbling." After all, the bullets did expand. I retorted that if the editor ate a heavy meal, I hoped his belly expanded but did not explode. This shamed him into printing a brief correction – the only time I succeeded in having an error corrected by this paper.
Later the paper claimed that President Clinton was considering a law to prohibit the conversion of semiautomatic rifles to full automatic – that is, machine guns.
I wrote again, pointing out that automatic weapons had been severely regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 – hardly late news.
I added that mere possession of parts for an automatic weapon, even if they are not assembled and even if some parts are missing, subjects someone to 10 years in federal prison and a $10,000 fine. I included the phone number of the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which enforces firearms laws.
There was no correction. Instead, the paper printed a front-page story subtitled "Attempts to restrict automatic weapons … fall victim to give and take of politics."
That is, I pointed out a factual error and listed an impartial authority to verify my claim. The paper merely repeated the error – which therefore became a lie.
It’s difficult to be sure of being right. But it’s easy to be sure of being wrong – contradict yourself. Then you have to be wrong at least part of the time.
That’s what the paper did next. When laws to ban so-called assault weapons were being considered, the paper called them "weapons of choice" for criminals.
Later, when laws to ban inexpensive handguns called "Saturday night specials" were being considered, the paper asserted they were criminals’ "weapons of choice."
And now that the assault weapons ban is up for renewal, the paper again calls them "weapons of choice" for criminals and describes them as "automatic weapons."
If one questions the editors’ anti-gun agenda, this sequence of events removes all doubt. Whatever type of gun is being considered for prohibition, that is the type the editors declare is criminals’ "weapon of choice."
But what is the editors’ "weapon of choice"? It surely isn’t the truth. What do you call "errors" that are repeated after the facts are pointed out? I call them lies. And what do you call lies that further an agenda? I call them propaganda.
Nor is dishonesty confined to the subject of guns.
In an article on the Middle East, the paper printed a map showing the West Bank as part of Jordan. I phoned the editor, who insisted this was correct.
I phoned Washington information and got the State Department number. I asked for the Middle East desk. A helpful official verified that we consider the West Bank to be "occupied territory, status to be determined." We have done so not just since 1967, when Israel captured the West Bank, but ever since 1948, when Jordan occupied it.
This took about 10 minutes – apparently too long for an editor to take to verify his facts. I wrote the paper but got neither a reply nor a correction.
On another occasion, an article claimed that the homicide rate always rises after wars. I wrote, noting that the homicide rate was as likely to fall as to rise. Thus the homicide rate rose after World War I and Vietnam, but fell after World War II and Korea.
My letter was printed, but World War II was omitted – making it seem that the homicide rate rose after two wars but fell after only one. This falsely implied that the article was largely correct.
You recall that on 9/11, the president was in Florida. He took an unpredictable route back to Washington to keep Air Force One safe from a possible fifth suicide plane. This was described as "Bush fled." Now there’s objective reporting for you.
But when the paper’s staff evacuated the building because of a phony bomb threat, the article didn’t say "We fled."
Note that these "errors" are not random. They lie – in both senses of that word – in the direction of the editors’ biases.
The paper is anti-gun. All the "errors" are in the direction of claiming that guns or ammunition are more dangerous than they really are, or that items already illegal are still legal, so that more laws are needed.
Not one "error" claims that guns or ammunition are less dangerous than they really are, or that legal items are illegal, so that fewer laws are needed.
Similarly, the paper is anti-Israel. Map "errors" incorrectly show disputed areas as part of Jordan, never as part of Israel. Moreover, Israeli residents on the West Bank are called "settlers." But from 1948 to 1967, when the West Bank was occupied by Jordan, Jordanian residents were just "residents."
The paper is anti-military. So it claims that veterans are unstable and that the homicide rate always goes up after wars. The "errors" are never in the direction of exaggerating the benefits of military service.
And the paper is anti-Bush. When he takes an indirect route to return to his duty station in a time of danger, that’s "fleeing." But when they leave their duty station in a time of danger, that’s not "fleeing." Yeah, sure.
This doesn’t begin to describe the paper’s biased coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the effect of tax cuts on the economy, or other important topics.
Revealingly, when I pointed out yet another error about guns to an editor, he retorted, with pride in his voice, "We don’t know much about guns." To him, ignorance of a subject was no bar to writing about it extensively.
The basic problem is a desire to push a political and social agenda, as opposed to a passion for the truth. The New York Times scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Plagiarizing a story is wrong. So is describing a scene one hasn’t visited.
But what’s worse is slanting the news to suit an agenda. What’s more destructive to freedom is feeding citizens bogus "news" designed to influence them.
What we need are people who believe their job is to uncover facts, not fabricate them. What we need are fewer "journalists" and more reporters.
