model 649 wrote in part:
I wouldn't go so far as to characterize the the report as "gun friendly" however.
-----------
I did not so characterize the segment. For the passing interest of anyone who "stops by", the following is the text of an e-amil I sent to WNYC.
Ladies and Gentlemen, as the case might be:
First, let me compliment you all on the general content of today's broadcast. I think that it was really a first rate job you did, particularly respecting coverage of government/bureaucratic antics seeking to avoid the requirements of the Freedom Of Information Act. Of course, the segment headed What reporters don't get about guns was really interesting, and frankly having heard this, I for one wondered and still wonder as to why in blazes you media types failed to discover your problems 30 years, or more ago? More on this in a moment. Meantime I most seriously suggest to the editorial boards and like groups in "media", that if you really want to gain an understanding of "gun people", or The Gun Culture, as it's sometimes known, that you read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross. I doubt that many, if any will so do, however I seriously submit that you should.
As to the "lack of empathy" that was mentioned, and what appears to be a situation where media types either cannot or will not treat gun owners as the generally reasonably people that most are, I submit that it is not a question of "cannot", rather it is a question of "will not". You all might also read some of the monographs by William Tonso, Professor Emeritus at U. of Indiana, Evansville, who wrote some pieces on what he politely described as "the information gate keepers".
On to other aspects, I think that the following might get the attention of those who trouble to read it. Mention was made of an Arizona newspaper, don't recall which one it was, one that had an editorial position that was strongly anti gun. For one reason or another, perhaps the fact that some reporters and or columnists actually "went out shooting" in the process coming to see that gun people were pretty much normal folk, just like they were, this paper underwent something in the way of a change in editorial policy, something that The New York Times, and many others, shows no sign of doing. Anyhow, a lady who was connected with this paper, the one in Arizona, in a voice-over, offered the following. One day, while on an errand or business related travel in the local area, she happened to tune into a talk radio program, where one individual was criticizing the paper, regarding it's anti gun position and policies. A gentleman phoned in to the show, this person having previously criticized the paper for the same reasons, and sort of defended the paper, saying that "anyone can make a mistake", the quote is not exact, I'm relying on memory.
Re this, which I found really interesting, might I note the following. Operation on the basis of what might be bad information, or information misunderstood, could be characterized as a "mistake", assuming that when correct data was made available, assuming that it wasn't already available, positions and or statements changed. Given that media outlets, on an ongoing basis, seem to "misunderstand available data" and or operate on the basis of bum data, it becomes all to clear that we are not looking at a simple mistake, rather we are confronting knowing and deliberate action. Once it's happenstance, maybe the second time it's coincidence, however when the same "mistakes" continue, mistakes it no longer is, if it ever was. Obviously, what is then faced is ENEMY ACTION, and respecting the unchanging editorial line/policy taken by most media outlets, ENEMY ACTION is the only reasonable characterization available.
Might I also note the following respecting media's stalwart and entirely proper defense of The First Amendment, that respecting their ongoing efforts in the direction of trashing The Second Amendment, that he who would diminish any constitutional right, diminishes all constitutional rights. In simple terms you all in media cannot have your cake, having previously eaten it. I cannot either, however that is something that I recognize. Sad to note, you people do not seem to, one wonders as to why.
Joejojoba111 wrote:
I tacitly understood that the npr would play pretty much whatever people wanted? Write a letter? Usually there's an ombudsman you can complain to if there is misleading information being broadcast, and they might even take their job seriously, working for ideals instead of money etc etc.
------------------
A Mr. Dvorkin, don't recall his first name, so far as I know, is the Ombudsman at NPR. I've e-mailed him in several instances. He sounds like a pleasant fellow, though I have quite serious questions as to the "size of the hammer he might swing" at NPR in Washington, D.C.. Another comment on the general subject of Ombudsmen I once heard was the following. Any organization that needed one, an ombudsman, was in real trouble to begin with.
Derek Zeanah wrote:
In my experience public radio actually tries to do a good job, and it seems there's less editorial control than you find in something like broadcast news.
OTOH, the sorts of people who want to work for NPR start with something of a liberal bias, so there's that to be overcome...
------------------
You might be right, however I personally have heard the same rubbish repeated time and time again, concerning firearms, on Public Radio stations, to accept that absent a large helping of salt. As I mentioned above, once it's a mistake, twice, perhaps happenstance, however the third time is knowing and deliberate enemy action. How would you characterize the fourth, the fifth and sixth times?
Once I had a somewhat heated phone conversation with the news director at WDUQ in Pittsburgh, that revolved about their sloppy use of technical terminology, assault weapon in particular. The news director allowed that I might be right in my comments, however the term Assault Weapon had become "part of the vernacular", he said. I pointed out that if that was the case, that media's unacceptably sloppy use of technical terms was the reason for the condition, and that such was, in my view, not acceptable. I also pointed out to this news guy, regarding "things that were part of the vernacular", the term ****** was also part of the vernacular, but that NPR stations, WDUQ in the present case, didn't toss that bit of vernacular around. The news director got terribly upset, for some reason.
As I said in my note to WNYC, I thought the broadcast was quite interesting, especially the segment dealing with media on guns. Re that, it appears that some might be beginning to recognize that there is something problematic about the way they are addressing things. Who knows, but what this recognition could lead to corrective action. I'm not planning to hold my breath, for blue is quite far from my best color, but I suppose that one can always hope, all the while, keeping their powder dry, cool too.
