Say Uncle takes a look at the media treatment of negligent discharge cases. I see this one often: “Investigators said the gun owner won’t face charges because he has a carry permit.” I’ve always kind of been baffled by that one too.
Category: The Media
Media Coverage of the Doylestown Rally
There were quite a number of media roaming around the rally, so this naturally made me wonder how fair the media coverage would be. Only two news outlets have covered it, or at least put their stories online. The first is the Intelligencer:
The pro-gun protesters tried to shout down speakers throughout the 45-minute rally, even as Moore sought a moment of silence for victims of gun violence and as Kessleman spoke of his dead son.
“I thought that was disrespectful,†Avino said. “It’s a poor reflection on them.â€
There weren’t any groups backing the protest, which was largely self-organized through informal communication networks, forums, Facebook, etc. Going in, it was hard to say what a smart tactic would be, because you don’t know what our opponents are going to focus on. If it’s a more vigil type rally, with speakers recounting lost loves ones, aggressive tactics would be boorish. But for an explicitly political rally, with calls to political action, chanting, etc, I don’t see why quiet opposition is necessarily the smart tactic.
This rally was not a vigil type rally, but it was explicitly political, with calls for action, including confiscation. More aggressive tactics were justified. When the line “for too many years Congress has done the bidding of the NRA,†our side cheered. When they called for bans on guns and magazine, our side booed. The speaker from New Jersey was heckled with calls to “Go back to Jersey!” When they tried to rally their crowd with “What do we want? Action!” and the pro-2A crowd drowned them out with “Freedom!” Cries of “leave us alone” were also often heard from the crowd when speakers called for action.
Where I think our side did cross the line was the few early hecklers during the moment of silence. Fortunately that quickly stopped, and our side did observe it, but those few early people own that quote above. Channel 10 News also covered the rally, I think a bit more fairly than the Intelligencer:
View more videos at: http://nbcphiladelphia.com.
UPDATE: Here’s video from the rally organizers. Decide for yourself whether they are being shouted down or just opposed.
Media & Guns
Most folks who read this blog have have probably seen this “Journalist Guide to Firearms” graphic at some point:
What amuses me about this is that we’ve highlighted when the Associated Press has tried to push journalists into the direction of using the correct language.
Yesterday, AP announced that they are expanding their “weapons” entry. Digital subscribers have full access to their new definitions, but they previewed one on Facebook.
semi-automatic A firearm that fires only once for each pull of the trigger. It reloads after each shot. The form: a semi-automatic rifle, a semi-automatic weapon, a semi-automatic pistol. The hyphen is an exception to general guidance against hyphenating words formed with semi-.
I find this amusing since people who know guns then started a discussion in the comments to improve the language so as to reduce potential confusion with double-action revolvers. We are everywhere, and I love it.
A C183 Firearm? Or C183 Point-and-Shoot Camera?
The media, who know about as much about guns as a squirrel, are jumping all over the story about Adam Lanza having his own gun safe. Maybe he did, or maybe it was Nancy Lanza’s safe. Either way, a big thing they point to is this?
Investigators found more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition in the house, and a holiday card with a check “made out to Adam Lanza for the purchase of a C183 (firearm), authored by Nancy Lanza,” according to a search warrant.
What the hell is a C183? I’ve never heard of a firearm by this model. It is a 14 megapixel camera. Did some ignorant journalist see C183 and just assume it was a gun? Who determined a C183 is a gun? I’ve never heard of any gun by this model name, and it’s possible there is one I don’t know about, but it is definitely also a point and shoot made by Kodak.
UPDATE: It occurs to me if you misinterpreted a Z as a 1, it could be a CZ83.
Pro-Gun Bloggers Were What?
Apparently the New York Times says that “[p]ro-gun gun bloggers were furious” over the apperance smart gun in the movie Skyfall, and “were convinced it was a Hollywood plot to undermine their rights.” I haven’t even seen the movie, personally, and I don’t recall any controversy hitting the gun blogosphere. Also, does anyone believe staff reporters at the New York Times spend their spare time trolling gun blogs?
Doing a quick Google search, I can find only one gun blogger writing about it. Â I noticed that article was reprinted in a few places so my guess is that the reporter did the same Google blog search I did, and didn’t bother to notice the same article was reprinted by the types of publications *cough* Ammoland *cough*, who are wont to reprint other people’s material and grab the SEO for it. Personally, I’m surprised that a NYT staff writer even knows that there is this thing called gun blogging, and thought to search on it. Perhaps we should be flattered.
As far as this “smart gun” nonsense goes, well, Bob Owens has more to say about that.
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
This is why everyone in the media, who will often have to write about guns, ought to go to the range every once in a while:
One was a .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol, and the other was a .22-caliber tactical rifle, capable of holding 28 rounds of ammunition.
Lesson one, for journalists: there is no such thing as a  “.22-caliber tactical rifle.” There is such a thing as a .22 caliber rifle that looks wicked tactical, for folks who enjoy that kind of thing. You will find no police force, SWAT team or military force armed with what is essentially a toy that fires rimfire rounds. Is it dangerous? Sure, it’s a gun that fires real bullets. But it’s still a .22-cliber rifle, just like the kind 13 year old boys used to shoot cans with.
Then Why Talk to the Media?
UPDATE: I should clarify here that when I’m speaking of “the media”, I’m implying speaking of hostile media, like the WaPo, NYT, or other outlets that have chronically shown an unwillingness to cover the issue fairly. Obviously I’m not against talking to friendly media, or to reporters that have shown a willingness to be fair. But that’s not Sari Horwitz.
NSSF is warning of a media ploy to divide and conquer. I am absolutely sure that the WaPo spun a yarn with that story we highlighted, but the fact is the less gun groups say to the media the better. I am not anti-NSSF by any means, and I won’t condemn the organization like others are doing. I think this was bad judgement rather than bad faith on their part. We’ve talked to many folks at NSSF, and they are fine people.
I believe saying something is an “NRA thing,” in regards to policy on some legislation, is ill advised, especially to a reporter. Steve Sanetti is absolutely right about the media ploy, so then why talk to them? The media’s goal is to try to make NRA look unreasonable, and out of the mainstream. Their goal is to isolate them, so it appears that we’re not showing a united front. Likewise, I fully accept that Alan Gottlieb may have only had a choice of how much crap was in the sandwich, but again, I think talking to the media about it is a mistake. The media is the enemy, and the less we say to them the better.
h/t Instapundit
What the Media Really Thinks of Gun Owners
Locally, there’s a new group that has popped up to defend gun rights. The media is aghast, and they resent being reminded that 1 in 17 of voting age adults in the county have concealed carry permits – a number from before the rush on permits post-Aurora and Newtown.
“Registration? Does it include the criminals?†[a local pro-gun State Rep.] asked, repeating a very tired argument. He went on, concluding: “Firearms protect children, wives and husbands.â€
What about the dog? Should we shoot people who threaten the family pet?
Yes, the paper just called the argument that we should punish criminals “tiring” before comparing the value of the lives of your spouse and children to that of a dog. Let that sink in. They think the concept of defending the lives of your children is as worthless as defending a house cat. Why? Because you own guns.
But, the unsigned editorial doesn’t stop there. No, they have to make gun owners out to be dangerous creatures.
Said one of the “concerned gun owners†of possible government intervention, “They have a hunger to control us — unless we stop them.â€
God help us.
Clearly, divine intervention is needed. Because gun owners couldn’t possibly be talking about stopping power-hungry politicians through civic engagement, public education efforts, citizen lobbying, and election volunteer activities.
This doesn’t even get into their policy discussion. They promote Obama’s gun ban agenda as “modest,” and then they try to claim that full gun registration isn’t really controversial at all. They think that a ban on firearms commonly owned and used by thousands of gun owners in the region is just not big deal and shouldn’t be challenged. They do make clear that we’re “entitled” to have opinions, but they are outraged that gun owners dare organize to express them.
Racism at Bloomberg?
And here I thought us knuckle dragging gun owners were the racists. People these days are often quick to cry racism when non exists or is intended. I’m not sure it was really intended here, but I can’t blame Blacks or Hispanics if they find these caricatures racially demeaning. I imagine it’s roughly similar to how we feel about this, this, and this.
We Have Come to This?
The left is basically tearing Bob Woodward to pieces, because, well, the White House asked them to, because he wrote a piece critical of the Administration’s position that the sequester is all the fault of the Republicans. I know what what has become of the journalism profession, but it is a very dark place they are in right now. The journalism profession is, in my opinion, the largest threat to the Republic currently. A sensible media, with strong values and a deep love and respect for our constitutional freedoms, would be circling the wagons around Woodward and ripping the White House to pieces. This is a sad spectacle for freedom.