I'm tired of CNN and their 2A/SYG rhetoric

[303tom]

And everyone wonders why Uncle Ted said what he said.........:banghead:

 

[kb58]

... the liberal media is against guns and they are making the most out of this opportunity to push their agenda.

I get so tired of reading this, like it's always someone elses fault and trying to turn it into an "us vs. them" thing. No, it's just us. The media, like any business, is all about money. If their shock-value "news" is dismissed as unimportant and people stopped consuming their product, they'd shape up or go out of business. So, this "liberal media" you speak of is in fact your neighbors - get upset at them.

When I'm in a checkout line and see someone pick up a National Enquirer to get their news, I feel like knocking them outside the head with a frozen trout for taking stupid pills.

 

[Lucifer_Sam]

NPR did not ennoble their brand when two of their executives were caught in a sting video, dining and laughing it up with people (the "stingers") they thought were members of the Muslim Brotherhood wanting to give them $5 million.

In the course of the video, one of the NPR executives referred to the Tea Party as "white, Middle America, gun-toting," and added, "They're seriously racist people." This executive also referred to an "anti-intellectual component of the Republican Party," and said, ""Liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives." Not surprisingly, the executive also agreed with anti-Semitic comments made by the "Arab," and offered anti-Semitic observations of his own.

This video went a long way in prompting members of Congress to call for a de-funding of NPR.

With executive leadership like that, I imagine the suspicions of a leftist tilt by NPR are not unfounded.


.

You mean that video by that worthless little skidmark? It was a lie.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218543378702266.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

Granted, the executive did act like an idiot on occasion in the unedited video.

It kind of telling about the another of the real biases of modern "journalism" that you didnt hear much about that. $eem$ there wa$nt enough intere$t.

 

[JFrame]

You mean that video by that worthless little skidmark? It was a lie.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218543378702266.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

Granted, the executive did act like an idiot on occasion in the unedited video.

It kind of telling about the another of the real biases of modern "journalism" that you didnt hear much about that. $eem$ there wa$nt enough intere$t.

We're probably straying a little too far from the 2A component of this discussion, but...

Raw or un-raw, the executives' biases and prejudices toward liberalism and against conservatism stand as is. The outright statements are hard to parse any other way. One executive resigned (euphemistically called "took another position") as a result of the video and subsequent publicity.

The net message of that sting operation stands on that basis.



.

 

[X-Rap]

The media has an obvious agenda that it is following and you can see it clearly by the volume of the stories that they report the most on. The only SYG case they care to report is the one in the headlines because they put it there. In the time since the Florida incident I'm sure there have been dozens of SYG cases that simply haven't been reported because it doesn't work to their end. The same can be said about young minority males being killed only statistically there is no racial component so it doesn't warrant national exposure. Jesse and Al would be worn to death if they had as much concern for young black men that are killed by other young black men.

 

[Hugo]

Attention CNN or other media organizations that might read this. Remember Edward R. Murrow who created that journalism award you want to win? Remember how he called out the scaremongering BS artist Senator Joseph McCarthy who ruined people lives to scare people into voting for him? Act more like Murrow and tone down the bias and "tweaking" the story and do some real reporting.

Stop acting like TMZ and be real reporters again. Were it not for the chain smoking, Edward R. Murrow would still be alive to chew you out on Larry King or Adam Carolla's podcast, or some other news show. Guns and self-defense aren't the problem. Criminals and "wannabe cops" in a badly run neighborhood watch (what is your neighborhood watch like?) who make mistakes and lie about it are the problem.

 

[wannabeagunsmith]

Me too. I hate CNN with a growing passion.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Senator McCarthy was right. He may not have gone about his business in a smooth manner but he was correct in calling out the communist agents and their motives. We still have communist agents in our own Congress, they are called the "Progressive Caucus". Several members of FDR's cabinet travelled to the Soviet Union in the late 1920's in order to study how Joe Stalin was able to control the population of the country. These men (and a woman anarchist who was demoralized when she discovered that Stalin tended to execute anarchists) served openly and spread their roots deeply in the bureaucracy.

 

[fxstchewy]

I can't stand to watch any mainstream news, too much agenda.

 

[kb58]

We disconnected broadcast TV 10 years ago, life is so much better now, and there are more hours in the day.

 

[Positivity]

I have never even taken a statistic class before, but even I know that correlation does not mean causation.

 

[SpringfieldArmoryXD]

I don't mind watching FOX news, just to keep up on whats going on in the world. They are more of a Republican news station, but at least they are always bringing the "other" side onto their shows to discuss their opposing ideas. I find that more times then not, FOX always presents numbers and factual data that the "other" side can never come up with a real argument against. They instead try and make everything a personal attack on whoever they are talking to.

Watching MSNBC or CNN makes me sick, because they just sit there with there "own" kind and discuss about how bad things are, with no credible factual data to back up there often ridiculous claims. I often find my blood begin to boil and I have to turn it off, it will drive you crazy!

 

[rajb123]

The dangerous remington rifle story was from cnbc, not msnbc

 

[Neverwinter]

I find that more times then not, FOX always presents numbers and factual data that the "other" side can never come up with a real argument against.

Can't argue against this kind of data.

Unfortunately, Fox seems intent on continuing to provide more than enough rope for media watchdogs to hang them by.

And it's the continual reliance of people on Fox as their primary source which provides for data like this: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/12/22/university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

 

[Lucifer_Sam]

We're probably straying a little too far from the 2A component of this discussion, but...

Raw or un-raw, the executives' biases and prejudices toward liberalism and against conservatism stand as is. The outright statements are hard to parse any other way. One executive resigned (euphemistically called "took another position") as a result of the video and subsequent publicity.

The net message of that sting operation stands on that basis.

.

I think were ok, were still on the media and bias.

I disagree. The crux of the NPR issue was the whole muslim connection, sympathies with Sharia law, ect. From what I've seen and read of the unedited video, he does say some kind bad things about the tea party (which doesn't bother me much) but he also talks about his pride in his conservative heritage and how hes financially conservative.

The reason they let they him go is in the video. NPRs policy is when a journalists political leanings are publicized they are considered compromised.

But none of his personal opinions really matter b/c he feels strongly that his role as a journalist is to report unbiased news, something he repeats over and over. Every news executive is going to have political opinions, but its supposed to be their job to keep those opinions out of the news. In my experience NPR does this pretty well.

Its an interesting video. I've been watching it instead of just excerpts. He really doesnt have much good to say about any of the current news stations, left or right.

 

[JFrame]

I think were ok, were still on the media and bias.

I disagree. The crux of the NPR issue was the whole muslim connection, sympathies with Sharia law, ect. From what I've seen and read of the unedited video, he does say some kind bad things about the tea party (which doesn't bother me much) but he also talks about his pride in his conservative heritage and how hes financially conservative.

The reason they let they him go is in the video. NPRs policy is when a journalists political leanings are publicized they are considered compromised.

But none of his personal opinions really matter b/c he feels strongly that his role as a journalist is to report unbiased news, something he repeats over and over. Every news executive is going to have political opinions, but its supposed to be their job to keep those opinions out of the news. In my experience NPR does this pretty well.

Its an interesting video. I've been watching it instead of just excerpts. He really doesnt have much good to say about any of the current news stations, left or right.

Hi Sam -- thanks for the additional input. I actually wasn't concerned with the whole Muslim thing in the context of this thread, because the issue being discussed is purported liberal bias in the media vis-a-vis firearms and the 2A.

I can appreciate the additional texture being gleaned by watching the raw footage, but I have to believe that certain key declarations stand out more than others, and are more revealing of the core narrative. The executive's dismissal of the Tea Party was certainly carried out with a broad brush, and his characterization of the movement as filled with white racists is virtually a caricature of the leftist elitist. And in a 2A context, let's not ignore that he includes "gun-toting" as a pejorative. In this regard, we must also incorporate your attitude toward the Tea Party as representative of the bias that you are bringing to the analysis of the proceedings (hey -- we all have them...).

And regardless of any protestations that the executive might have about his pride in his conservative heritage, they do not reconcile with his assessment that liberals are "today" more educated and intelligent than conservatives. He sounds like someone who can "appreciate" the hard, by-the-bootstraps work that got his family to where it is, but now has seen the light -- and a higher calling -- in a liberalism that is the path to a better future. I know quite a few people like that, personally. Even if, as you suggested previously, his talk was largely motivated by a desire to glom onto what he thought was Arab money, he was certainly over the top in selling his case. Sometimes, Occam's Razor says that it is what it is.

I suppose the one thing we can come to an agreement on is that, as you also noted previously, he sounded like an idiot.


.

 

[wannabeagunsmith]

I'm not anti gun. I am pro-american

Seriously, read it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/opinion/granderson-nugent/index.html

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm not anti gun. I am pro-american

How can one be pro-American and anti-Constitution?

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. It is a civil right, just like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

 

[Tommygunn]

And it's the continual reliance of people on Fox as their primary source which provides for data like this: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...re-misinformed

A rather bizarre article. Fox News has rarely covered the idiot "birther controversy" and I am hard pressed to understand how anyone listening to Fox would come away with the idea that Obama was not born in Hawaii .... unless they just plain didn't believe what Fox reported.
Fox has covered "global warming" stories. I have heard it claimed on various sources that "most scientists" believe it's real. Other reports draw into question just what that means. A climatologist's opinion might be more informed on the issue than, say, a nuclear physicist's. Yet some of these reports lump together the opinion of many scientists from a variety of disciplines.
And so on.
Fox news may not be perfect but I hardly think that report is necessarily any more ......"perfect."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Neverwinter
And it's the continual reliance of people on Fox as their primary source which provides for data like this: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...re-misinformed

Originally posted by Tommygunn
A rather bizarre article. Fox News has rarely covered the idiot "birther controversy" and I am hard pressed to understand how anyone listening to Fox would come away with the idea that Obama was not born in Hawaii .... unless they just plain didn't believe what Fox reported.

In fact, Bill O'Rielly has attacked the "birthers" and poured scorn on them.

But hey, what does the truth matter? All of us on the left know how bad, evil and unfair Fox is -- so they must have supported the "birthers."

 

[Bojangles7]

I'm done with that channel.

Just now? I wasn't aware anybody still watched them.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Ann is determined not to let facts get in the way of claiming that a minor should have defended himself with a gun that he couldn't legally have. Unless she is talking about having other armed people enacting retribution on behalf of the slain youth, which is completely contrary to the civilized rule of law.


If there are two oft repeated facts, it's that firearms make two people equal and that law abiding citizens don't have a monopoly on arms. This talismanic role being envisioned for arms is indefensible.

Were you intending to be sarcastic in the phrase "oft repeated facts"?
Did you complete all your thoughts in this last line of comments?

a) On the point "firearms make two people equal", whether firearms do or do not make two people equal (which in my opinion they do not, since there are factors such as surprise, skill, etc.), firearms raise the stakes for the attacker. If the subject of an attack has or may have a firearm, the attacker is much more likely to at least be severely wounded, or to fear being wounded. Equality doesn't matter. What matters is that the subject of an attack is better off with a firearm than without.

b) On the point "law abiding citizens don't have a monopoly on arms", so what? Again, the law-abiding prospective subject of an attack is better off with a firearm than without.

c) On the judgement: "This talismanic role being envisioned for arms is indefensible", the only role I asserted for firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens was "discouragement" of individual mob members. A .45 cal 230 grain hollow-point "talisman" moving at 900 feet per second is fairly discouraging. There! I just defended my assertion, so it was not "indefensible".

All in all, I do not see the relevance of your statements to my assertion that Leftists are trying to disarm law-abiding citizens to empower the Leftist's mobs. And I also said/implied that many media outlets are complicit with Leftist "elites" in this effort.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Regarding the video of the NPR exec, JFrame wrote:

Hi Sam -- thanks for the additional input. I actually wasn't concerned with the whole Muslim thing in the context of this thread...[but] even if, as you suggested previously, his [the NPR exec's] talk was largely motivated by a desire to glom onto what he thought was Arab money, he was certainly over the top in selling his case.

JFrame, Sam and others:

I think I can tie up together for you the Muslim/Arab and 2A aspects. I am no Middle East expert, but I have read enough Fouad Ajami, Fahreed Zacharia, etc. to know that even secular, Westernized, educated natives of the Arab Middle East have a political philosophy we Americans would recognize as statist, socialist, fascist, leftist, elitist or thereabouts. They do not believe much in individual freedom, especially for us "little people". And, in particular, they are absolutists in denying their own countrymen gun rights. And, of course, their state-controlled media outlets go right along with this line.

So...... in that context, our brown-nosing NPR exec might have been playing up to his Middle Easter dinner guests by hyper-displaying an abhorance of gun rights and the typical American parties (tea) that support gun rights. Perhaps our NPR exec is really a regular deer hunter who keeps his household well armed, but, for the sake of the Arab money, put on a show of anti-gunnery?

Do we believe that? Naaaahhhh

 

[Neverwinter]

Were you intending to be sarcastic in the phrase "oft repeated facts"?
Did you complete all your thoughts in this last line of comments?

More tongue in cheek regarding how pithy and overplayed they are

a) On the point "firearms make two people equal", whether firearms do or do not make two people equal (which in my opinion they do not, since there are factors such as surprise, skill, etc.), firearms raise the stakes for the attacker. If the subject of an attack has or may have a firearm, the attacker is much more likely to at least be severely wounded, or to fear being wounded. Equality doesn't matter. What matters is that the subject of an attack is better off with a firearm than without.

b) On the point "law abiding citizens don't have a monopoly on arms", so what? Again, the law-abiding prospective subject of an attack is better off with a firearm than without.

c) On the judgement: "This talismanic role being envisioned for arms is indefensible", the only role I asserted for firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens was "discouragement" of individual mob members. A .45 cal 230 grain hollow-point "talisman" moving at 900 feet per second is fairly discouraging. There! I just defended my assertion, so it was not "indefensible".

You claimed that it made them better off. I simply provided the observation that it has a marginal effect which doesn't significantly alter the outcome.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Let me ask you a simple question -- there are some areas that are very dangerous. One neighborhood in Little Rock, Arkansas, is among the top 25 neighborhoods in the nation for homicide.

If you had to walk through that neighborhood regularly at night, would you perfer to be armed or unarmed?