How Firearm Incidents are Reported by The Media
- Thread starter Newton
- Start date
- Status
Hkmp5sd
Member
ACP,
For the most part, that's true. What the guys back in the newsroom didn't like was this information being provided live, directly to the population. You were seeing the combat live, with the reporters merely describing what they were actually seeing. They were not giving "commentary" or the usual talking head "interpretation" of what was going on. The broadcasters back home don't feel you are capable enough to view the video, listen to the interviews and reach a correct judgement on what was really happening. They think they should censor some of the information (it's just too far over your head for you to comprehend) and format what information is released to make it so you, with your limited intellect, can understand the truth and not what the administration's propaganda machine is putting out.
For the most part, that's true. What the guys back in the newsroom didn't like was this information being provided live, directly to the population. You were seeing the combat live, with the reporters merely describing what they were actually seeing. They were not giving "commentary" or the usual talking head "interpretation" of what was going on. The broadcasters back home don't feel you are capable enough to view the video, listen to the interviews and reach a correct judgement on what was really happening. They think they should censor some of the information (it's just too far over your head for you to comprehend) and format what information is released to make it so you, with your limited intellect, can understand the truth and not what the administration's propaganda machine is putting out.
Mark Tyson
Member
Man, this is thread got ugly.
In my opinion there is no way you can call the media generally biased towards the "left". Look at all the face time that Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan get on MSNBC. Look at the popularity of Liddy, Limbaugh and a host of others on the radio. Fox News, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal ... all are conservative media.
Conservatives think the media's too liberal. Liberals think the media's too conservative. Bias is in the eye of the beholder.
In my opinion there is no way you can call the media generally biased towards the "left". Look at all the face time that Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan get on MSNBC. Look at the popularity of Liddy, Limbaugh and a host of others on the radio. Fox News, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal ... all are conservative media.
Conservatives think the media's too liberal. Liberals think the media's too conservative. Bias is in the eye of the beholder.
Politically Incorrect
Member
One story I related to before is when I was out in a live truck with a reporter from my station, I told him that a Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30 is not an "assault rifle." We were not sure which since the police spokesman said it was a "Ruger assault rifle" and didn't mention the caliber.
He changed it to an assault-style weapon to appease me, which was easier on my ears. The reporter had talked about supporting citizens carrying concealed handguns. We talked with the news photographer about why they should allow it in Ohio since the laws do not prevent criminals from carrying concealed.
He changed it to an assault-style weapon to appease me, which was easier on my ears. The reporter had talked about supporting citizens carrying concealed handguns. We talked with the news photographer about why they should allow it in Ohio since the laws do not prevent criminals from carrying concealed.
cut the bull
let's subject all firearms reports, indeed all reports by the media, to:
The Bullfighter
http://www.dc.com/insights/bullfighter/news.asp
and see how much bs is filtered out!
I can't get it to run on my system, but maybe someone could screen these stories?
C-
let's subject all firearms reports, indeed all reports by the media, to:
The Bullfighter
http://www.dc.com/insights/bullfighter/news.asp
and see how much bs is filtered out!
I can't get it to run on my system, but maybe someone could screen these stories?
C-
NewsShooter
member
Mr Bakerr,
First of all I won't go any farther with this thread except to say that you DO NOT know what my politics are, Conservative Dem. Or what my personal experience is. Twenty three years in the media most at the network level.
US Army Vet, and proud of it. I went to Afghanistan with the 101st last year and again to the Persian Gulf this year. I own several firearms and carry 24/7.
Now as to the militia, I am very familiar with the militia movement. More than I care to be. Oh and I do own a shortwave radio too.
I won't say any more unless you continue flaming those who call you out or disagree with your points of view. I do disagree with most of if not all of your crap so far and probably will continue to do so. But I will defend your right to spew anything you wish.
I will say this about most reporters and media. NO media outlet is monolithic. They never speak with one voice. Reporters are allmost never an expert on a given subject. Thats why they sound like they are talking down to you. They are trying to not sound as uninformed as they really are.
Now, Mr Bakerrrrrrrrr if you want to continue the firefight let'er rip, I am a very very good shot.
First of all I won't go any farther with this thread except to say that you DO NOT know what my politics are, Conservative Dem. Or what my personal experience is. Twenty three years in the media most at the network level.
US Army Vet, and proud of it. I went to Afghanistan with the 101st last year and again to the Persian Gulf this year. I own several firearms and carry 24/7.
Now as to the militia, I am very familiar with the militia movement. More than I care to be. Oh and I do own a shortwave radio too.
I won't say any more unless you continue flaming those who call you out or disagree with your points of view. I do disagree with most of if not all of your crap so far and probably will continue to do so. But I will defend your right to spew anything you wish.
I will say this about most reporters and media. NO media outlet is monolithic. They never speak with one voice. Reporters are allmost never an expert on a given subject. Thats why they sound like they are talking down to you. They are trying to not sound as uninformed as they really are.
Now, Mr Bakerrrrrrrrr if you want to continue the firefight let'er rip, I am a very very good shot.
bogie
Member
One of the major problems that the pro-gun movement has is that the far-right-to-the-point-of-making-Mussolini-look-benevolent-loonies tend to get a LOT of press... And since they're also pro-gun, they get a lot of BAD press for us...
The militia movement got its main growth during the gun control craziness of the late eighties/early nineties - it basically didn't exist before that. Then in many cases it got co-opted by the white power folks, which resulted in the eventual destruction of ANY credibility by the time of Waco...
The average reporter doesn't have the time any more to check facts. And the average editor doesn't have the time either. And neither of 'em know jack about guns. It's up to us to write/call/whatever, and politely bitch at 'em.
The militia movement got its main growth during the gun control craziness of the late eighties/early nineties - it basically didn't exist before that. Then in many cases it got co-opted by the white power folks, which resulted in the eventual destruction of ANY credibility by the time of Waco...
The average reporter doesn't have the time any more to check facts. And the average editor doesn't have the time either. And neither of 'em know jack about guns. It's up to us to write/call/whatever, and politely bitch at 'em.
NewsShooter
member
Bogie........
You sir, are correct.
You sir, are correct.
I remember a comment by Carol Simpson some years ago. She was the weekend anchor at ABC news. Her comment was to the effect that viewers wanted news reporters like her to tell them what to think about a news worthy event.
Regarding the shooting in a small university a year or two ago where two students (I think one of them was an out-of-state policeman) stopped the gunman, it is apparently true that very few news organizations that I am aware reported that the two men were armed. It amazed me that these two guys were interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America, and absolutely nothing was mentioned of them using their guns to stop the rampage. The only part reported is that they wrestled the assailant to the ground. Incidentially the assailant's gun was empty by then. At the time, I knew nothing about the two guys having guns.
So, the only thing I can think is it may have been mentioned in the interview, but ABC edited it out. The interview I saw, and assumed live, probably was not.
And, I do believe there is a very strong anti-gun, anti-gun owner bigotry, especially in the old guard news media, I do not believe it is just an "accident". It is politically driven, no doubt. One media research group reported not too long ago that for every 11 news articles that were gun-control, anti-gun oriented, there was one anti-gun control, pro-gun oriented article. IIRC, it was Accuracy in Media.
Regarding the shooting in a small university a year or two ago where two students (I think one of them was an out-of-state policeman) stopped the gunman, it is apparently true that very few news organizations that I am aware reported that the two men were armed. It amazed me that these two guys were interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America, and absolutely nothing was mentioned of them using their guns to stop the rampage. The only part reported is that they wrestled the assailant to the ground. Incidentially the assailant's gun was empty by then. At the time, I knew nothing about the two guys having guns.
So, the only thing I can think is it may have been mentioned in the interview, but ABC edited it out. The interview I saw, and assumed live, probably was not.
And, I do believe there is a very strong anti-gun, anti-gun owner bigotry, especially in the old guard news media, I do not believe it is just an "accident". It is politically driven, no doubt. One media research group reported not too long ago that for every 11 news articles that were gun-control, anti-gun oriented, there was one anti-gun control, pro-gun oriented article. IIRC, it was Accuracy in Media.
Well, in the entire meager 24 Years of my life I have yet to hear/see an Unbiased News Report in the US or UK....
& from my observations, the News Shows are only intersted in Sinsationalisem and High Raitings, which 9 times out of 10 with Gun Related topics is usualy Anti-Gun with Negitive Chicken Little type garbage.
"The sky is Falling, The sky is Falling, If People are allowed to have Weapons The World Will End!"
(*cough*Er...& How did the USA come to be again?)
about the only thing I even Pay attention to on the news anymore is the Weather Report...(& that's Wrong at least 60% of the time)
Over here in the UK when that Psyco Shot up that School with his Handguns the Media Predictably Was on it like a Fly to Dung, Immediatly 'Promoting' the Idea of Banning Guns from Civillain Posession throughout the UK (Primaraly Handguns).
The Goverment Sadly took the bait.....
I'm not sure which is the more Baffleing, the fact that they actualy expected all the crooks to turn in there weaponry, or the fact that they don't seem to notice that the gun related crime rate has been skyrocketing since the ban...
Kinda Puzzling Realy.....
& from my observations, the News Shows are only intersted in Sinsationalisem and High Raitings, which 9 times out of 10 with Gun Related topics is usualy Anti-Gun with Negitive Chicken Little type garbage.
"The sky is Falling, The sky is Falling, If People are allowed to have Weapons The World Will End!"
(*cough*Er...& How did the USA come to be again?)
about the only thing I even Pay attention to on the news anymore is the Weather Report...(& that's Wrong at least 60% of the time)
Over here in the UK when that Psyco Shot up that School with his Handguns the Media Predictably Was on it like a Fly to Dung, Immediatly 'Promoting' the Idea of Banning Guns from Civillain Posession throughout the UK (Primaraly Handguns).
The Goverment Sadly took the bait.....
I'm not sure which is the more Baffleing, the fact that they actualy expected all the crooks to turn in there weaponry, or the fact that they don't seem to notice that the gun related crime rate has been skyrocketing since the ban...
Kinda Puzzling Realy.....
t-money
Member
Zedicus said:
"And, I do believe there is a very strong anti-gun, anti-gun owner bigotry, especially in the old guard news media, I do not believe it is just an "accident". It is politically driven, no doubt. One media research group reported not too long ago that for every 11 news articles that were gun-control, anti-gun oriented, there was one anti-gun control, pro-gun oriented article. IIRC, it was Accuracy in Media."
Yep. And if those news organizations cared a bit about their own bias, they would have changed a long time ago. They have no excuse. They can not claim mere lack of firearms knowledge.
Anyone remember what that scumbag Wolff Blitzer (sp?) did awhile ago on CNN with the whole AWB and the AK's? I bet dimes to donuts that guy wakes up every morning with a clear conscience.
I wouldn't trust CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS if they reported that the Pope was Catholic.
"And, I do believe there is a very strong anti-gun, anti-gun owner bigotry, especially in the old guard news media, I do not believe it is just an "accident". It is politically driven, no doubt. One media research group reported not too long ago that for every 11 news articles that were gun-control, anti-gun oriented, there was one anti-gun control, pro-gun oriented article. IIRC, it was Accuracy in Media."
Yep. And if those news organizations cared a bit about their own bias, they would have changed a long time ago. They have no excuse. They can not claim mere lack of firearms knowledge.
Anyone remember what that scumbag Wolff Blitzer (sp?) did awhile ago on CNN with the whole AWB and the AK's? I bet dimes to donuts that guy wakes up every morning with a clear conscience.
I wouldn't trust CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS if they reported that the Pope was Catholic.
Alan Smithiee
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 248
just a brief note to remind people that not everyone in Idaho sees marxist's under every bed and behind every news broadcast.
although we DO have the same problems with media everyone else seems to, pro Money, pro Sensationalism pro "it bleeds it leads" ignorance on firearm issues.
although we DO have the same problems with media everyone else seems to, pro Money, pro Sensationalism pro "it bleeds it leads" ignorance on firearm issues.
I have never worked in a news organization. But I had to deal with them for several years, giving interviews, answering questions, etc. Two facts stick out--
1. Reporters NEVER EVER get all the facts straight. You can spell it out for them, write it down for them, they NEVER EVER GET IT ALL RIGHT. Remember this when reading/watching a news story -- almost all reporters will get a very significant percentage of the facts that they are reporting WRONG. I cannot emphasize this enough -- BEWARE of taking the "facts" reported by these people as gospel, until confirmed by multiple sources
2. I never observed any signs of a cabal, or organized effort to promote "progressive" ideals. It was much more subtle than that, and even more pervassive. Most reporters/editors I ran across where liberals, and had the basic underlying assumption that conservatives where either stupid or evil. This was (and I believe still is) so automatic in many reporters/editors makeup that they do not even understand this about themselves, but it colors every story they do.
Only recently have we begun to get some balance in some news organizations -- not that FOX and others don't suffer from similar problems listed above, but at least their bias is from the other side, and by observing both species, we can sometimes get a little closer to the truth.
1. Reporters NEVER EVER get all the facts straight. You can spell it out for them, write it down for them, they NEVER EVER GET IT ALL RIGHT. Remember this when reading/watching a news story -- almost all reporters will get a very significant percentage of the facts that they are reporting WRONG. I cannot emphasize this enough -- BEWARE of taking the "facts" reported by these people as gospel, until confirmed by multiple sources
2. I never observed any signs of a cabal, or organized effort to promote "progressive" ideals. It was much more subtle than that, and even more pervassive. Most reporters/editors I ran across where liberals, and had the basic underlying assumption that conservatives where either stupid or evil. This was (and I believe still is) so automatic in many reporters/editors makeup that they do not even understand this about themselves, but it colors every story they do.
Only recently have we begun to get some balance in some news organizations -- not that FOX and others don't suffer from similar problems listed above, but at least their bias is from the other side, and by observing both species, we can sometimes get a little closer to the truth.
Monkeyleg
Member.
I can provide anyone with ample evidence that our local paper spikes their stories with anti-gun spin. Someday, when I have time, I want to go down to the paper's archives and get the microfiche file (yes, it's that old) of one of the stories they did on assault weapons. Nobody on this forum would believe that such an article could even be published anywhere.
Just a few weeks ago, I had a letter to the editor printed in which a sentence, in part, said "...fully automatic ('machine gun') fire or semiautomatic (one pull of the trigger)..."
Well, the paper took out the words in parentheses. Why do you think they did that? Could it be that most people don't know the meaning of the term "fully automatic?"
They once ran a story on gun shows, and ran a photo from the last show of a table of bolt-action rifles. The caption said that both semiautomatic and automatic weapons were for sale at the show. I called the editor and raised hell, telling her that I had been to the show and I had also called the show's promoter after seeing the story, just to verify that there were no Class III dealers there.
The paper printed a retraction, but that's just more evidence of either bias or complete stupidity. Sort of like saying that US troops were attacked by Baathist loyalists using AK-47's and cruise missiles.
Just a few weeks ago, I had a letter to the editor printed in which a sentence, in part, said "...fully automatic ('machine gun') fire or semiautomatic (one pull of the trigger)..."
Well, the paper took out the words in parentheses. Why do you think they did that? Could it be that most people don't know the meaning of the term "fully automatic?"
They once ran a story on gun shows, and ran a photo from the last show of a table of bolt-action rifles. The caption said that both semiautomatic and automatic weapons were for sale at the show. I called the editor and raised hell, telling her that I had been to the show and I had also called the show's promoter after seeing the story, just to verify that there were no Class III dealers there.
The paper printed a retraction, but that's just more evidence of either bias or complete stupidity. Sort of like saying that US troops were attacked by Baathist loyalists using AK-47's and cruise missiles.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked