Press Hypocrisy

[Mainsail]

I saw this in the Sunday paper and it screams about the hypocrisy of the press. They point out a danger presented by polar bears at this remote Norwegian observatory and felt the need to qualify the existence of the rifle. So what is more likely to occur, a human attacked by a polar bear or a human attacked by a rapist, or a mugger, or car-jacker?

How could you change the caption to make it applicable to urban firearms carry?

EDIT: I guess I should have made more clear that the newspaper story has nothing to do with polar bears or rifles; it’s about a remote observatory. The picture they had was of a man who happens to have a rifle slung across his back. To use the picture they have to qualify the rifle, because people will ask why a man at an observatory needs a gun. Also, there are substantially more muggings, rapes, and car-jackings than there are polar bear attacks. So do the people who might be attacked by a polar bear need a firearm more than the people who live in high crime areas like Washington DC or New York?

 

[boredelmo]

I see what you're getting at, but I don't see hypocrisy on the page.

This article isn't about RKBA in the U.S. It's about observatories and polar bears.


Unless the specific newspaper has the hole "guns skill" thing going on.

 

[NetJunkie]

So what is more likely to occur, a human attacked by a polar bear or a human attacked by a rapist, or a mugger, or car-jacker?

Where that picture is taken? I'd say polar bear. Maybe they asked the person "Hey, why do you carry that rifle?" and they said "Polar bears!". I think you're stretching here.

 

[RLsnow]

they need guns for polar bears there allright :O

 

[JWarren]

I dunno...

From now on, I think I'll be using the Polar Bears excuse for my AR-15 instead of Zombies. In South Mississippi, I suspect I'll still get the same blank stares.


-- John

 

[Mainsail]

Where that picture is taken? I'd say polar bear. Maybe they asked the person "Hey, why do you carry that rifle?" and they said "Polar bears!". I think you're stretching here.

Was it the big words or merely the number of words I used? I think you missed the entire point.

 

[cambeul41]

I think you missed the entire point.

I don't think anyone missed your point. Perhaps you missed theirs.

 

[JWarren]

I think you missed the entire point.

I'll elaborate. Those of us who don't see this as over-the-top are making light of the subject and enjoying a bit of humor.

We didn't miss the point. We just don't see it as a huge issue.


-- John

 

[TCB in TN]

I don't think anyone missed your point. Perhaps you missed theirs.

I think he got their point, his point is that the media will run an article like this w/o any issue, but when you compare the likelyhood of someone there being attacked by polar bears to being attacked here by muggers, rapists, etc it is more likely to be hit by muggers etc. But let someone talk about being armed HERE and they are a gun nut or worse.

 

[ranger335v]

You said it in the title of your post, "Press Hypocrisy" and that's no sudden revelation to anyone these days, just the normal state of affairs. The only way the press would be upset about the photo would be if the sign were in English.

 

[k_dawg]

I think it is a case more of media lazy. They didn't do some investigation and report what caliber firearm that is, how many grains of powder and bullet.. as well as ballistics information..

 

[Piedmont Plinker]

Hmm, I see your point.
"Because of MS13, Charlie carries a revolver (yeah, I know you'd need more firepower)."
Never see a picture of a suburbanite with a revolver on his hip in a newspaper, though.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

"Because of the potential for polar bears a worker carries a rifle..."

"Because of the potential for criminals a worker carries a concealed pistol..."

 

[XLMiguel]

Hypocracy? Seems more like a basic statement of the obvious.

Dunno where I first read this idea, but "before going unarmed into Paradise, one should make damned sure that's where one is". The Norweigian Artic ain't paradise . . . there are Polar Bears there and they do eat people (among other things).

 

[Feud]

I think he got their point, his point is that the media will run an article like this w/o any issue, but when you compare the likelyhood of someone there being attacked by polar bears to being attacked here by muggers, rapists, etc it is more likely to be hit by muggers etc. But let someone talk about being armed HERE and they are a gun nut or worse.

You speak of the media as a single entity, which couldn't be further from the truth. The press is not for or against guns. Authors may be, a particular news company may be, but saying that any a particular portrayal is hypocritical to the methods of "the press" is akin to saying that all gun owners are irresponsible rednecks, and those who aren't are hypocrites since (as we already established) all gun owners are irresponsible rednecks.

The only way this article can be considered hypocritical would be if the same author also editorialized about guns not being necessary for protection.

 

[searcher451]

+1 to Feud's comments. The media/the press are comprised of individuals with individual likes and dislikes. Some of its members like this movie and not another, enjoy this book but not that book, support this candidate and not another. The collective media looks much the same as collective gun owners, folks. The idea that members of the media are all "anti" and "liberal" is a fallacy; it's just not true.

 

[MrCleanOK]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If I worked up there, I'd carry a rifle for the polar bears. If a mugger wants to brave the -20F temperatures to come after my wallet, I say bring him on. My polar bear gun is more than adequate.

 

[bogie]

OT: If you're going to scan something with an image on the back, a good to way have things nice and sharp is to back it with a black sheet of paper - but I usually use black felt. Stuff will look sharper and you won't have the ghosting through the paper. This can come in handy if you're sending something to a media outlet.

 

[R127]

It's been well established for a very long time now that the msm is not a reliable source of credible information. They don't do any better on well reasoned opinion. Given the typical quality of reporting I'm guessing it went something like this,

(reporter disembarks and sees sign that says caution polar bears: valid for all of Svalbard)

reporter: Hi Mr Norwegian Guy! I'm scared to death of your GUN! Why do you have it? Is it just for making me wet my pants? It looks like an AK-47!

Mr Norwegian Guy: (returning from a little fun on the plinking range) Is for shooting beers!

reporter: Oh yes! I am also really scared of bears! The largest predator in my high rise apartment in New York City is a rat and even those are really creepy to me! I sure wish I was back there right now. I just stepped in something and I think it was actual mud!

 

[RLsnow]

dont forget the damn russians either....

im kidding, Have no reason to think the russians are anything but good stand up people

 

[strat81]

dont forget the damn russians either....

Wait, are you saying the Norwegians carry rifles to defend themselves from the Russians? Or, that the Russians also carry rifles in the Arctic to defend themselves from polar bears? Or, is yours just a statement like "Remember the Alamo!"?


As for the original article, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Axctal]

One thing to remember about polar bear:
When you are on his territory, you are on his menu.
Polar bear WILL hunt you as a mere food, no ifs or buts.
I heared from a member of my extened family (he travelled alot)
about a guy who wanted to go hunting polar bear.
The guide told him: "remember one thing: you hunt him, but he is hunting you"

 

[Lonestar49]

Appropriate Rebuttal..

Double-tap

 

[Lonestar49]

Appropriate Rebuttal..

...

Hello, Park Service, or Rangers, please.. Can you guys hurry and get over here, as a Polar Bear is aggressively tearing down our Tent, and won't allow us access to our SUV to escape certain fear of our lives.. and we're law abiding citizens in a No-Gun Zone ?

Hello 911, can you send any LEO's over here quick as we're being robbed at gun-point of our money and our car and now they have the address of our house and they said that was their next stop and if we made any calls within 30mins after they leave, they're gonna take out the Baby-sitter and the kids.. We're in fear of our lives, along with, our kids and baby-sitter.. Can you hurry?

As we're law abiding citizens/people in a No-Gun Zone, along with, we're 2, out of millions, in a gray zone about our 2nd Amendment Rights, "and the people shall have the right to bear arms, and this Right shall not be infringed.." so we're, somewhere, where we feel we shouldn't have to be, being "forced by our Goverments denial of our Rights to protect ourselves and family, and and being forced by the armed BG's who need, nor obey any Rights..


Ls

 

[Feud]

It's been well established for a very long time now that the msm is not a reliable source of credible information.

Really?

Who established this, when did they do it, and what standard of judgment did they use to determine credibility? You don't have to write out an answer, a link to the scholarly source or other citation would be acceptable.

Warrants are neither proof nor evidence, and only serve to mislead the less informed.