The mainstream media continues to pound the drum, in lockstep with Obama, for more gun control and gun bans.
For example, while the President demands action on gun bans, the media immediately and obediently obliged and unquestioningly followed his lead in beating the drum. Immediately after the president made his announcement, Leonard Pitts pushes an op-ed for gun bans. Coincidentally I'm sure, at the same time, Rochelle Riley, publishes with practically the same text and theme in her op-ed.
However, even in the midst of this White House - MSM coordinated approach, there are some indications that at least some in the media realize it can't go completely wave the pro-gun-ban flag as much as it would like to do so.
While USA Today, via the Detroit Free Press, highlights the Stockton shooting that led to the Bush I and 1994 bans and pushes for more bans in the wake of Newton, the article almost incredibly wasn't 100% pro ban and actually had some small elements of opposition.
The article Stockton school massacre: A tragically familiar pattern started off as expected with the heart-rendering tragedy and moved on to feature prominently teachers who had survived the attack calling for more gun control now. But, it then did something else that was rather unexpected given the typical media pattern for these pieces:
Rob Young, a child who was shot during that attack actually got some text in the article showing his opposition to any gun bans:
The other side of the debate is represented by an unlikely foe: Rob Young, a 30-year-old police officer, who still bears the physical scars of a day he "will never forget."Like his teachers, who still refer to him as "Robbie," Young was moved to "do something" after Newtown. But that "something" has left his former teachers shaking their heads - some in disbelief - that their former charge stands firmly with the powerful gun rights lobby, opposing any new gun restrictions.
"There isn't a gun law in place that would have stopped what happened to me," Young said. "I have never blamed the gun. It wasn't the fault of the AK-47. If Patrick Purdy didn't have a gun and still wanted to do something, he would have found another way to do it."
....
He is a vocal advocate for putting armed security in schools, including authorizing trained school officials to carry weapons.
"Guns have saved lives," Young said. "Police cannot be everywhere at once."
Kudos to Mr. Young for an impressive and reasoned statement. Even a few years back, there's simply no way that the media would have covered a shooting victim's reasoned dissent and opposition to the gun-banner's line, so there are some signs of improvement from the media bias standard.
Certainly it is an improvement from the days when the media had no competition and simply failed to cover opposition to gun bans or would simply paint opponents as heartless rednecks.
There's still plenty of room for improvement and lots to do to improve the situation however, including continually trying to call out, educate and correct the media regarding their deliberately misleading terminology and their continual factual errors in reporting gun-related matters.
We also need to work on their quite charming and naive belief that just because an anti-gun politician claims a law dealing with guns will do X, it will actually do X. This is especially so when the title of the law says it will do X, while the text of the law says it will actually do X+Y or just Y or even Y+Z. Funnily enough, the media is a lot more skeptical of politicians (especially Republican politicians) when they announce bills on other topics.
No comments:
Post a Comment