A Response from MSNBC

MSNBC has quoted us on an article, based on my Thursday post on the topic. This article was actually released Thursday night, but I have not honestly had time to link it until now. It’s actually a pretty balanced article, on the whole. But I never know ahead of time when contacted by a reporter whether it’s something looking for some balance, or whether it’s going to be a hack job. Unfortunately, when it’s MSNBC, my gut tells me hack job. In this case that wasn’t the case.

No doubt MAIG is going to try to drive that 1.5 million number as hard and far as they can. The question is whether any politicians will buy it. Regardless of whether it’s real grassroots or not, it’s likely MAIG has accomplished more here than the Brady Organization has, even in the past.

Taking My Rights Won’t Bring Anyone Back

The Washington Post ran a story over the weekend lamenting that Sandy Hook didn’t change anything on guns, with this bit of grief porn. I don’t know how I’d react if I lost a kid, but I can be pretty sure I’m not going to involve anyone else in my grief, and damned sure I’m not going to let anyone write stories about it. I generally tend to view such external and public displays as fundamentally selfish. That might be harsh, but that’s just how I view it. Newsbusters Tim Graham has more on this story, and notes:

The other politically interesting part of this story was how the distraught parents are molded and shaped by P.R. consultants to say the market-tested things so they can win.

Yeah, I also don’t see myself hiring a PR firm if I ever lose a kid either.

h/t The Gun Wire for the Newsbusters link.

Journalism Prof Misfires on NRA Speech Claims

It would seem that journalism professor Chris Swindell has forgotten the elementary lesson we all learned that one should be able to answer the 5 Ws when reporting a story. Sure, he asserted the Who, and he made some dubious claims about the What and Why. But, he didn’t include the When, Where–you know, the actual evidence for his claims.

Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad.

I’m sure most of you have read this article by now since it was linked on Drudge, but I have to admit that I’m floored the Charleston Gazette opted to run it since claims like this aren’t backed up by any kinds of quotes or speech references. It’s devoid of facts, but makes outlandish claims while citing zero evidence for much of his piece. In the few areas where he does reference some kind of “fact,” it is misconstrued beyond even what even other liberals will claim, or as far as I can tell in one reference, completely falsified.

The closest Swindell comes to actually citing any sort of “evidence,” he completely misconstrues the case beyond even what Media Matters was willing to do. He references Jim Porter’s speech where he made the comment that in the South, plenty of people still call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. He made the comment as a joke in discussing the fact that the NRA was founded in New York, where he was speaking in 2012. (See what I did there? I answered who, where, when, why, and what. That lesson is free of charge, Chris Swindell.) Swindell falsifies the “fact” and claims that it was an entire speech about the Civil War. No, it wasn’t. In fact, Porter, in one throw away line during a speech that briefly mentioned the history of the NRA, was making light of something that is actually true in some areas. I didn’t even live in the old south that was most involved in the Civil War, and I heard people call it the War of Northern Aggression.

At another point in Swindell’s article, he says:

To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”

I know this sounds petty, but where they hell is the evidence that any NRA leader quoted that song at Annual Meeting or any other event? I was there, and I don’t recall hearing it. I searched for it, and I can’t find any references for Wayne LaPierre or Jim Porter quoting from the song. In fact, the singer responsible for the song from which that lyric is lifted is a Democrat who openly supports Obama’s policies. (Toby Keith was once hired to play an NRA convention 5 years prior to his declaration of support for Obama. That puts Keith outside of the mainstream of even other Oklahoma Democrats since not even the Democratic elected official to DC would support Obama.)

But back to the point of the post, there’s no actual evidence that I can find that this lyric was quoted. The evidence shows that Jim Porter did not actually deliver an entire speech on the Civil War while only calling it the War of Northern Aggression. And there are no actual quotes referenced that back up Swindell’s claim that it’s time to kill NRA members with assaults from tanks, jets, and missiles while putting the rest of us up in front of a firing squad.

Now, I get that the Charleston Gazette probably ran this piece because they knew exactly the kind of response it would get. I mean, come on; who isn’t going to click on an article by a journalism professor who advocates killing 5 million Americans for having different political views? But maybe I’m naïve when I think that even such link bait should at least follow the most elementary of journalistic principles. Apparently the editors of the Gazette and the journalism department of Marshall University don’t agree and believe that facts are optional in their reports.

The New York Times a Tool of the Brady Campaign

Sorry for the late start this morning. Insomnia can be a harsh mistress. Emily Miller notes that the New York Times is a tool of the Brady Campaign, with a leading story that drags up cases from the early 2000s that show the industry doesn’t care about curbing the use of guns in crime. Much like Ford and Toyota don’t care about drunk drivers, because they make and sell cars.

Trying to Tie Chris Christie to the NRA

A few readers have sent me this story from the Philadelphia Inquirer, that I think needs some clearing up.

Based on the task force’s report, Christie made anti-violence recommendations that gun control advocates said didn’t go far enough. Around that time, two donations came in to Christie’s gubernatorial re-election campaign from NRA lobbyist Randy Kozuch, campaign records released yesterday show: $2,000 on March 5, as the task force was completing its work, and $1,000 on April 23, a few days after Christie issued his final gun proposals.

Randy used to head up State and Local Affairs, which is essentially NRA’s state lobbying effort. All the NRA State Liaisons report through State and Local Affairs. When James Baker came back to ILA several years ago, he was put in charge of ILA’s Federal Affairs team. Chuck Cunningham, who at the time headed up Federal Affairs, moved to head up State and Local Affairs. Kozuch went to work for the Office of Advancement, which is outside of NRA’s political arm (ILA). He donated to Christies campaign privately. In short, maybe Randy Kozuch “isn’t mad at Christie,” but it’s completely factually inaccurate to suggest “NRA sent cash,” as the Philadelphia Inquirer has done here.

Unexpected Shaming of Anti-Gun Groups

There’s a fine line between being seen or heard and shoving your politics so much in someone’s face that they get utterly turned off and it works against you. Make your voice heard doesn’t mean piss off everyone around you. That doesn’t help a cause.

So imagine my surprise that the local media has actually been reporting honestly that it was an anti-gun group that decided to go shove their politics in people’s faces at a bunch of little league games. To add to the mix, the very anti-gun media are even editorializing against the decision by the anti-gun groups to disrupt the atmosphere of the games and not blaming gun owners. (Though they admit they aren’t a fan of individuals who plan to open carry in opposition, they don’t lay the blame at their feet.)

This editorial doesn’t just condemn a rinky-dink anti-gun group. The speakers at the event they say should have been canceled are a former governor and a current state lawmaker. Good for the media for calling out the appropriate party for their desire to get up in everyone’s faces where it is rather inappropriate.

Bias Much?

So a poll says that 54% of Arizonans are either happy with the state’s gun laws, or want the law to be less strict, and what was the headline read? “Poll: Most Arizonans want stricter gun laws.” This is not even remotely accurate, given that only 42% of Arizonans said “the sale of guns should be subject to stricter laws.” This would, at best, be a plurality, if you ignore the fact that the rest of those polled said they were fine with the laws as is or wanted them to be less strict. There is no universe where this poll says that most Arizonans want stricter gun laws.

The Media Didn’t Learn a Thing after Boston

You’d think after so much public derision over their terrible job reporting on the Boston bombing situation, the media would think it wise to step back and consider how they report on breaking events and whether they are contributing to a sense of panic by printing and announcing every rumor they hear. I think it is safe to say that the Philly media definitely didn’t learn anything.

Here’s what I can tell you about a story that has apparently been unfolding since 9:00am today at the Independence Visitor Center in downtown Philly.

The local paper says that the Center was closed down because of a bomb threat in their headline. When you read the article, you find out that there was no actual threat just a perception that a guy who looked funny because he wore a camo coat on a cold day had some clothes and junk in his car may have possibly been a threat that involved a bomb.

A local tv station reports nothing about concerns about a bomb, but that SWAT teams were on the scene because the guy in the camo coat may have also had his face painted. There’s no mention of clothes or junk in his car, just that police shut down the main parking garage in the area in order to search every corner for anything suspicious before giving an all clear.

So the only clear facts that appear to be consistent are that a guy was wearing a coat on a cold day, the coat was apparently in a camouflage pattern, he had a car parked in a parking garage, and that the Philly police felt the best response was to shut down a major landmark and the parking garage because of this man wearing a coat on a cold day. Oh, and they also agree that he was hauled off in handcuffs, but officials are unwilling to say why he was detained.

At this point, even if there is a reasonable explanation for the police response, the reporting by at least one of these outlets–if not both–is irresponsible and clearly geared toward promoting fear in order to draw eyeballs. That’s why neither story is getting a link at the moment. Neither one deserves to be rewarded for reporting that appears to be, under the most generous descriptions, sloppy at best.

UPDATE: Another report actually relies on on-the-record statements from the police. Can you imagine the insanity behind such caution and restraint?

So far, the facts appear to be that a man was wearing camo (no mention of face paint) and that he had a car that was dirty. This alone was enough for police to determine that he should be taken into custody even though they admit that the K9 unit and bomb squad found absolutely nothing in his car but junk. Now this might be my crazy libertarian side coming out, but last time I checked, possession of shitty fashion sense and dirty cars isn’t actually a crime.

Is there no one else disturbed by the apparent extreme police state on display here? Are urban dwellers that content to give up their civil liberties?

Fast Cars & Freedom*

I love markets. Markets generally tell us what people really want and how much they value something. For example, gun rights and fast cars.

For those of you who aren’t NASCAR fans, NRA has sponsored a race tonight, the NRA 500. As a politician opposed to freedom and fun, Chris Murphy (D-CT) stepped in and tried to use the pressure of his office to have NASCAR turn on NRA’s long planned sponsorship. That didn’t work, so Murphy turned on Fox to try and get them to yank it from the air. (Though NASCAR has pledged to review their sponsorship agreements after the race.)

Fox didn’t pull it, but fans are noticing that Fox announcers are going out of their way to avoid saying the name of the race tonight except where they are contractually obligated to do so. (I would embed the tweet on that topic here, but Cameron Gray of NRA News, who reported on the contract requirements, blocks us for some reason, so I cannot get the embed code.) I just can’t fathom how a network that really needs to attract viewers willing to spend money on sponsors and advertisers decides that it is in their best interest to piss off those people ready to spend money.

How do I know they are ready to spend money? Easy, the President of the Texas Motor Speedway tells us that the combined NRA & NASCAR fanbase is spending big, big bucks:


According to a statement by Gossage covered by ESPN earlier, objections to the NRA sponsorship are few and far between. Interestingly, they actually looked up those who complained and found that the vast majority of those few are not even customers.

“We’ve had fewer than a dozen responses,” Gossage said. “Of those, only two had purchased tickets [to other TMS events]. There is no controversy or big uproar or even a tiny uproar.”

But Fox is hardly the only shortsighted business involved in tonight’s race. The same ESPN article notes that the PR directors for two drivers ordered them not to grant any interviews in the media room so that they won’t have to be pictured with the letters NRA behind them. No doubt those same PR pros have probably squashed any efforts by the driver or their teams to use the #NRA500 hashtag tonight on Twitter – you know, the hashtag that’s trending nationwide right now. We wouldn’t want those drivers to turn up for any racing fans searching that hashtag, now would we?

If I was a driver, regardless on my views of guns, I would look at the merchandise sales and the social media opportunities lost, then I would promptly fire my PR person for not knowing a damn thing about my customer base. Numbers don’t lie, but PR directors apparently do when motivated by politics instead of the best business interests of their clients.

If Gossage is interested, this former Texas Motor Speedway customer appreciates the class the Speedway has shown in the face of a hostile media and an lawmaker who forgets we’re a free society. Granted, the last event I attended was a Rolling Stones concert in high school. But I am a proven customer nonetheless!

*Title shamelessly stolen from ExUrban Kevin

Gun Control Groups Claim Credit for NRA Member Calls

The anti-gun leaders are just so eager! It’s naïvely cute, except for the press that just happily relates their claims of success without actually questioning anything they do.

Take this NPR article that reports a claim by an anti-gun group that they generated tons of phone calls to Sen. Mark Warner’s office on the same as an NRA action alert that they were the ones who overwhelmed the office – not NRA members.

The National Rifle Association had told its members to barrage Warner’s office with calls that morning. When Moms Demand Action heard that, they launched a counteroffensive, clogging up Warner’s phone lines so badly that calls were going straight to voicemail.

The reporter does nothing to actually question the claim. Now, I wouldn’t expect them to demand a detailed list from the Senator’s office about how many calls came from each side. However, I would ask the anti-gun advocate how she came to that conclusion when she knew for a fact that the opposition with more than 4.5 million members known for political activism weren’t part of that barrage. If the anti-gun group couldn’t prove it, the the paragraph should have been worded very differently to note that it’s a claim by the organization based on member accounts or whatever metric the organization leader claimed. But that doesn’t drive the agenda of “proving” how weak NRA is compared to these anti-gun groups.