An anti-gun 20/20 this friday

Status
Not open for further replies.

skwab

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
380
Location
Texas
So this morning on Good Morning America they were discussing guns in the U.S. in light of the recent shootings, and Diane Sawyer (who I'm sorry but is one of the biggest idiots in broadcast television) gave a snippet of the topics that are being tackled in this week's 20/20 on friday - the whole hour dedicated to the topic of Guns in the U.S. - she said she spent a year researching for this piece and sounds like her goal is to attempt to debunk every reason we have for having a firearm in the home, including revisiting her gem of a piece several years ago about kids and guns.

But what I think will be interesting is that in part of it she did a "study" about using a firearm in self defense, and she hinted that her conclusion was that it doesn't help.

But here is my opinion: the antis are disappointed with the recent verbage coming out of the white house after the Obama Admin shot down holder and clinton for suggesting revisiting the AWB and other gun related legislation. Here they thought he was their anti-gun hero and, at least for the time being, he isn't playing ball. So there has been an increased barrage of media attention (seems most of the major news networks have had hour long specials on guns with an anti-gun slant) on guns to try to put it in the news, make it a topic so that the Dems can no longer ignore it. The antis have the mass media in their back pocket, and we're seeing a direct result of that. And it's timed with these massacres (ABC working on this piece for a year) - not a coincidence.

Anyway - might be something you want to look at.
 
I heard about it when Diane Sawyer was doing her hissy over the fact that congress hasn't conducted a door-to-door confiscation because of the Binghamton shooting.:fire:

The field reporter actually referred to mass shootings as,
something along the lines of a 'Tragic American Tradition'.:banghead:

I don't know if I could stand to watch it though.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it's a mistake to watch because it increases they're ratings... :uhoh:

But anyway, if you do watch, make a list of the sponsors, and if you can record the program for later reference.

The way to get these programs is through the advertisers, and the FCC.

1. Few people know it, but the network isn't responsible for the program’s content - the stations that are licensed to broadcast are. When complaints are filed with the FCC the stations have to reply - and sometimes give the other side FREE equal time. In addition these complaints are considered when the station’s license comes up for renewal, because they are required to broadcast, “in the public interest.” So every station wants a record that’s clean.

Many years ago CBS did a hit piece called "Guns of Autumn," going after both guns and hunting. A local gun club filed a protest against the area TV station - in the form of a petition, and between the club's members and a table at a gun show they collected over 2000 signatures. When it was filed at the FCC (with a copy to the station) they went ballistic! A complaint of this magnitude was unheard of. These sorts of complaints about fairness and accuracy could endanger they're license, and without it they'd be out of business. Word came back to us that the station's top brass had burned up the phone lines calling CBS in New York. :cuss: :evil: :D

2. E-mails, calls and letters of complaint to the advertisers that pay big bucks to sell whatever products or services they offer hurts both the station and network. Advertisers do not want to find they’re in the middle of a fight they want no part of. Advertising is how both the stations and networks make they're money. It never hurts to hit them where... well where it hurts...
 
I wont watch it
one of the previews some lady said something to the effect of

"if spinach killed 40 people the FDA would have pulled it off the street"

I'm so glad I have good guns that stay home
 
Old Fuff - thats an awesome response! If we could duplicate it again...and again...wonder how long the MSM would be in the anti's back pocket. Hitting their advertisers in a depressed exonomic climate would give them pause.
 
I'm going to watch it, just on the most minute microscopic ghost of a chance that it'll actually be somewhat even-handed.

It's like $5 for Powerball every year or two when the jackpot hits nine digits - sure there's a snowball's chance in hell, but file it under 'entertainment expenses'.
 
Old Fluff thanks for the info - that's interesting - didn't realize that's how things worked.

But while I certainly don't want to boost the ratings of their supposed "reporting" I think it's important to keep up with the kind of poo they're shoveling.
 
Those anti-gunners sure know everything needed to know about guns to make an intelligent argument against them. :barf:

They should realize that even if all guns were magically removed from the world, people would still be killing each other. In the UK, gun violence might be down, but stabbings and beatings still make the violence where it was before the guns were banned.

I for one would rather be shot a couple times and die in a minute or instantly than be stabbed twenty times and bleed to death for 20 minutes.
 
If we could duplicate it again...and again...wonder how long the MSM would be in the anti's back pocket. Hitting their advertisers in a depressed exonomic climate would give them pause.

Well urban newspapers are going through a major crisis, and many have filed for bankruptcy, including both major dailies in Chicago. What is causing this decline is advertisers switching to other media, such as TV or the Internet. Meanwhile advertisers are looking at both the cost and results of any advertising they place, because in this economy they can’t afford to lose any sales. Car dealers are an excellent example of this, and they do not want to get mixed up in anyone else’s battles.

Unlike newspapers, radio and TV stations can’t operate without a federal license, and that license has to be periodically renewed. Those that are licensed can’t afford to lose it, and there are a lot of others that would like to get it. I don’t think they care much about network content unless it gets them into trouble, but when that happens they care a lot!

We can also make a case by charging that the media; because of its sensational reporting of these incidents, tend to encourage copycats and are a factor in causing demented individuals to do the same, as in their sick minds it seem like a way to get the attention they crave. When these kinds of incidents were local rather then national (even international) news they happened much less frequently.

When you deal with the mass media, asking for fairness will get you nowhere. They have an agenda, and any protests from our side do nothing but make them feel warm and fuzzy – not to mention secure. But when you hit them from an economic perspective they will take notice. Money always counts. :evil:
 
Carl - I think that was another area that was mentioned that they've "explored" - I think there was mention of visiting areas where there is stricter gun control - I'm curious as to what their conclusions are.
 
I don't know that the economic hit will work. I mean, it sounds better than a whole lot of ideas out there.... I wouldn't be all that upset if after Sawyer does her "let's throw our the 2A" piece, John Stossel gets a chance to do a pro 2A piece. But, I don't think it will work to actually cause that. The best thing to do is to have every gun owner we can find NEVER watch 20/20 again. When you think of the fact that they do such biased pieces on guns, what else do you think is biased? What value do you think that show has? And, send letters to let them know. The sooner we can get the staff of 20/20 begging for change, the better off we'll be.
 
20/20 has one good thing going for it. John Stossel. Most of the time he gets it. If you remember several years ago, he did a show titled "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity". One of the myths he debunked was "Gun control reduces crime". He interviewed a group of criminals in prision. They said their biggest fear was not the police, but the armed victim. He also pointed out that the number of children accidentally killed by guns in the home are very small when compared to many other dangers in the home that nobody care about. His books do the same thing.

Maybe we should send him e-mails asking for balance and a rebuttal. For those of us that have seen previews, what are some of the questions you would like to see asked? To me it looked like they tried to stage a simulation of a shooting spree. They gave plastic guns to ordinary people to see what kind of a difference they could make by being armed. They showed one woman trying to pull her gun and getting it caught in her shirt. Did this person have any prior gun training? Was she a pro-gun or anti?

Give it some thought and send Stossel and e-mail. It may not help but it couldn't hurt.
 
If John Stossel is given an opportunity to rebut Diane Sawyer's idiocy, it'll be worth watching.

Otherwise it'll just be more anti gun lies.


I wonder if Ms Sawyer will do the show sober?
 
I think there was mention of visiting areas where there is stricter gun control - I'm curious as to what their conclusions are.

Maybe they'll vist DC and talk about their low murder rate.

20/20 has one good thing going for it. John Stossel.

He does offer a bit of a bright spot in the midst of the lunacy that is network news.

If someone that does watch this would post the advertisers here for those that can't watch it, it would be appreciated. I've written advertisers before, I can do it again.
 
Remember the 1975 Dan Blather fiasco "The Guns of Autumn" on CBS?

Anti-Gun, Anti-Hunting, is a way of life for the gutless east coast and New York media...so why get upset with what these clowns put out?

Anything less that total 'Ban Guns Now' BS would be a positive spin on the Second Amendment, and that is never going to happen in the age of "change".
 
Watch the show with pen and paper in hand. Note anything that is incorrect. Note who advertised during the show. Be prepared to nail them on anything that is grossly incorrect. Write the sponsors of the show and tell them you will not buy their products because they support an anti-gun agenda.
 
You can do a lot more good by sending your phone calls, e-mails, and other protests to the local (in this case) ABC outlet. If a storm develops before Friday the more timid ones will decide to not carry the program. They have the option to do this, and if they do it represents a financial loss for the network and those advertisers who bought time on it. In the present economy the TV stations do not want any negative controversy that might affect their bottom line – not to mention their license. The network is not legally responsible for what the program presents, but the stations that broadcast it are. Pointing out that you are ready to take your complaint to the FCC if the program turns out to be unfairly biased will give any station’s management/owners a case of queasy stomach.
 
You can do a lot more good by sending your phone calls, e-mails, and other protests to the local (in this case) ABC outlet. If a storm develops before Friday the more timid ones will decide to not carry the program.

Old Fuff:

I agree that protesting this kind of content at the local level may be the most effective approach.

However, how can we protest against the content BEFORE we've seen it based only on internet rumors?

I wonder if being prepared to flood the local affiliate with complaints within minutes of the end of the program might not be more effective?

That would at least be more "fair" - although playing fair is not necessarily the best tactic - and certainly not one the opposition often employs.

Biggest problem for me here is that I don't think I can bring myself to watch it. I gotta be careful with my blood pressure - and I don't want my firearm-ambivilant wife to get any wrong ideas. I've worked too hard over the last couple of years to drag her toward the light.

Artfully crafted propaganda might send her sliding backward, which is of course the biggest danger of this kind of crap. Sincere people who just want to "stop the violence" might be swayed by it.
 
Are we not interested in watching the thing before we leak all over our shoes? Good grief, people. Hate to say it, but we sound like the very people who don't want to listen to the facts as they are presented from our perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top