The Problem of Bias Ruining Your Story

When most gun owners think of bias in the press, they think of the mainstream media reporters who only sometimes bother to grudgingly show up to their assignments covering pro-gun rallies or events. There’s even a joke that’s pretty common in serious gun circles that if you go to a pro-Second Amendment event and wear a suit or otherwise look normal, there’s no way a reporter will talk to you. However, if you deck yourself out in camo and carry crazy-sounding signs, they’ll line up and then claim you’re a spokesman for the entire movement of gun owners.

But bias happens on our side, too. Case in point, last month’s “Letter from the Editor” in America’s First Freedom by Mark Chesnut assumes that nearly everyone with a press identification badge covering the NRA Annual Meeting and all of the activities associated with it are looking to demonize NRA members or miss out on what he considers the real story of the yearly NRA event.

While taking a break in the pressroom during the recent NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits in St. Louis, I overheard some members of the press lamenting the fact that they couldn’t find a good protest to cover.

One mentioned he had walked several blocks attempting to find a planned protest, but never found it. Another mentioned that she, too, had walked all the way around outside the convention center in hopes of running across protesters, but she, too, had come up empty-handed.

They looked demoralized. Their quest for the Holy Grail of the NRA meeting–rabid anti-gunners vehemently protesting the hated “gun lobby”–had ended in failure.

There’s just one problem with his premise about these people looking to promote the anti-gun agenda while ignoring the rest of the story of NRA’s weekend events. The woman he mentions? That was me, a life member of NRA and volunteer with both ILA and the Foundation. The guy? Thirdpower, an NRA endowment member and volunteer for the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA state association in his home state. In fact, with a quick peek at our press badges or, even better, a quick question as a reporter, he would have found out that his assumptions about what he overheard were actually the complete opposite of what the conversation was actually about.

How can we be sure that Mr. Chesnut was listening to us? Well, his description fits perfectly if you take out his misinterpretation of the full conversation. Also, the descriptions fit since both Thirdpower and I did retreat to the press office to sit down for a bit with some hot coffee (for me) to warm up after running around in the rain. We also know for a fact that the only mainstream media photographers assigned to cover the story of the protests left the premises after the anti-gun groups failed to show. We know this because we talked to them and even worked together for a time to try and find the protest.

So why would Mr. Chesnut assume we “looked demoralized” if we weren’t actually looking to promote anti-gun causes? I’d say it probably had something to do with the fact that running about a quarter mile around the outside of the convention center in the rain may have left us looking a little less than perky.

If he detected any disappointment, it was largely in jest. Though I’ve been covering protests at NRA conventions since Pittsburgh in 2004, so I do have an appreciation of the entertainment value of protests. Not to mention, it’s a little frustrating when anti-gun groups spend weeks promoting an event and then fail to show up due to a little rain when more than 70,000 NRA members managed to handle the drizzle. We wanted to get the real story to share with readers, that’s why we tried to find the protesters. When no anti-gun people showed up, we were happy to share it with readers. We did provide the real story when mainstream media relied on press releases and spokesmen.

So while Mr. Chesnut may have been trying to make a point about bias in mainstream coverage of the NRA event, his targets and facts were misplaced because of his own assumptions and biases. He only chose to hear half the story instead of stopping to talk to actual NRA members and supporters who were taking the time to report the full picture. A lesson in media coverage indeed.

Thirdpower’s story about his longer walk down to the Arch and back is here.

Fast and Furious Explained

Dave Kopel does an excellent job of describing the scandal from the very beginning, starting off with Operation Wide Receiver under the Bush Administration, and continuing through to the current scandal, just based on the facts we know so far. This is vastly different from the spin you’re seeing in the media. The Philadelphia Stinkquirer is not exception here, carrying the water for the Administration by making this out to be a GOP witch hunt rather than legitimate oversight. You’re also seeing a lot in the papers about this originating under the Bush Administration, as if somehow that makes it better. Fine. Let’s get Bush Administration officials up before Congress. Get Gonzalez up there and hold him to account. I thought Bush’s DOJ was a cluster under Gonzalez too. What kind of morons do the media take us for that if they say “Bush did it too!!” we’re just going to slink back into our dumb, stupid redneck gun nuts bunkers and shrug it off.

Obama probably would never have claimed Executive Privilege if he didn’t have his lapdogs at the Washington Hoax, the Philadelphia Stinkquirer and the Paper of Making up the Record ready to try to make the scandal disappear for him.

PolitinotsoFact Wisconsin

Politifact investigates an NRA claim about Tom Barrett’s gun banning ways, and finds some truth to it, but still rules that it’s mostly false. NRA’s claim is:

“Well, Barrett voted to ban 15 different kinds of guns, even a lot of common deer rifles.”

To refute this claim, they contacted a cop, a reporter, and a guy who quit the NRA because he hates pro-gun politics. Real objective crowd there. The warden is probably the one I’d trust the most:

Lawhern, who taught DNR hunter safety classes for 18 years, recalled that when he worked in the field in the mid-1990s he would see perhaps half a dozen hunters each season using an assault-style weapon.

Out of how many hunters interacted with? If you interacted with 25 hunters every season, this would amount to a large percentage. This is meaningless for defeating the claim without proper context. From the reporter:

And Smith said that from his experience, while firearms such as the AK-47 and the AR-15 “have gained favor among some hunters and sport shooters in recent decades, they constitute a small fraction of deer hunting rifles in use today and were an even smaller fraction in 1994.”

The AR-15 is the hottest selling rifle on the market today. It is also the most ubiquitous rifle on the sport shooting circuit. To me, if you’re seeing it fairly regularly in the field, that means it’s not unusual. I don’t hunt, and certainly didn’t in 1994, but in sport shooting the AR-15 is not only common, it’s ubiquitous. I think the mistake here is mistaking the word common, which is not a strong a word as ubiquitous. Common, to me, means it’s not unusual to see in places where you see people with guns.

That’s not to say there’s not traditionalist hunters out there that frown on the popularity of the AR-15. The whole Zumbo incident never would have happened if he hadn’t noticed more hunters using the platform, and loudly echoed his disapproval. The claim was that they were common hunting rifles, not that they were ubiquitous, and the claim was never tied explicitly to the 1994 time frame. If this is more true today, then that’s Tom Barrett’s problem, not ours. That they’ve become so popular for hunting and target shooting 20 years later is just all the more reason that Barrett’s position on this was wrong to being with.

As far as NRA’s actual claim, I’d rate it is as somewhat true. It’s a bit overstated, but that’s a far cry from “mostly false.” Tom Barrett is a gun banner, and the rifles he chose to ban are not uncommonly used by hunters. That’s all that really ought to matter.

In other news, if you live in Wisconsin, you might want to spread the word that the Wisconsin Deer Hunter’s Association is run by a guy who doesn’t give a crap about your Second Amendment rights. Actually, given I can’t find a 990 for this organization, I question its legitimacy when it comes to speaking for deer hunters. This looks a bit more legit to me. Anyone in WI care to comment if Wisconsin Deer Hunter’s Association is a false flag designed to give anti-gun Democrats some pro-hunting pro-outdoors cover? Kind of smells like one.

I Always Love Headlines Like This

Recent killings in NH renew debate about gun laws.” I think the only debate about gun laws is happening in the editorial board meetings at the Nashua Telegraph. But the media says it’s renewing the debate, so it must be so, right?

Interesting Case in Illinois

Bunch of youths out looking for unlocked cars to break into. Youth approach property of homeowner. Homeowner goes outside with a .25 ACP pistol and fires three “warning” shots, one of which struck one of the youths killing him. Homeowner is facing manslaughter charges.

It’s worth noting Illinois law has no duty to retreat requirement, but that’s not at issue in this case. The homeowner’s attorney is concerned about the Martin case being in people’s minds. But I hadn’t heard about this case until someone sent it to me. Where’s the media? Why isn’t this kid’s death such a national tragedy?

Either way, his attorney should be worried, because this looks like manslaughter based on the facts that are already known.

Assault on Pennsylvania RKBA

The media has been in full force lately trying to foil our agenda here in Pennsylvania. This article in the Scranton Times Tribune speaks against preemption enforcement. The surprising thing is they don’t mention the Martin shooting at all. However, The Daily Pennsylvanian, the newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania manages to get things mostly right, with only a few aspects of the legal issues surrounding SYG misstated, which is a better track record than most of the media is doing in this case. They do, however, continue to propagate the myth that Zimmerman was not arrested.

An environmental group is suing a gun club over lead shot pollution in the Delaware River. They are also suing because they do pigeon shoots there, and dead pigeons end up polluting the river as well, alleges the suit. I’ve looked at that club’s layout, and I’m doubtful that much shot is ending up in the river. Pigeons I can’t speak to.

The Express-Times of Easton, PA things our SYG law needs to be reviewed. Not surprising, given they know nothing about the law and continue peddling ignorance to the public about self-defense laws. Meanwhile the Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre runs an abysmal editorial that is very hateful of gun owners.

I’ll reiterate my call again to starve the beast!

Women Mocking Women

According to the conversation in the Twitter-verse, some on the left have declared that there is an ongoing War on Women because of disagreement over political issues. Amazingly, a column run in a major newspaper mocking a gathering of women who have differing views on issues like the Second Amendment, hunting, and self defense can be run and it is not counted as part of the offensive in this so-called War on Women.

But on April 13 (yes, a Friday), [Ann] Romney, Karen Santorum and Callista Gingrich will join in “A Conversation Off The Campaign Trail” for the ladies of the high-powered National Rifle Association. …

The three—minus Ron Paul’s wife Carol, whose status as an invitee is the subject of some disagreement—will headline a women’s leadership luncheon at the 2012 NRA convention in St. Louis. …

With the format and talking points of the luncheon still being worked out, we are left to speculate on what the wives might discuss.

As Mitt Romney marches closer to the nomination even as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum refuse to quit, will the wives act as policy surrogates? Will they tackle such hot-button issues as women’s reproductive rights, the budget, health care and, of course, gun legislation? …

Will the wives keep it light and chatty, how gosh-darn fun and in touch with voters their guys are?

Will they joke about the rigors of campaigning, while offering helpful hints on no-wrinkle travel clothing, hurricane-proof hair products and staying slim while enduring endless rubber chicken banquets and ethno-regional food-fests? (Thank heavens for elegant culinary interludes such as the NRA luncheon at the Four Seasons Hotel).

As an added bonus—perhaps playing into the stereotype that women just love to shop, there will also be silent and live auctions.

Yes, shocking that a fundraiser for an organization will feature auctions.

There’s a lightly mocking tone when items are highlighted like the mink fur teddy bear made from damaged pelts and leftovers from recycled garments using eco-friendly materials. I’m sure the author also used the tone to get a good laugh at the folks from Paul Newman’s Camps for Children with Cancer who used the teddy bear to raise funds. Or maybe the bear used to support the San Diego Children’s Hospital got a hearty laugh out of the folks at the Washington Post. As long as they are mocking those who would fundraise with something as outrageous as a fur teddy bear, the WaPo needs to set their sights upon the Epilepsy Foundation, Make-A-Wish Foundation, and the Albany Symphony.

Amazing how the WaPo‘s Annie Groer picks and chooses from the auction catalog to make it sound as though women from the NRA are mindless bimbos mostly interested in non-serious topics like haircare and shopping. She chooses to ignore the other auction items such as the Sabre pepper spray training classes for the winner and 12 friends or the signed copy of SHOOT: Your Guide to Shooting and Competition by top competition shooter Julie Golob. Groer makes mention of the purses designed to hold a concealed firearm, but chooses to ignore that women might take this right to carry seriously with any number of the 15 handguns on the auction block such as the Smith and Wesson Model 638. And of course the WaPo would never take any woman seriously if she actually bid on the 5 day defensive pistol course at Gunsite.

Overall, the column isn’t anything close to the openly misogynistic Eric Heyl who ran anti-woman columns just before last year’s NRA convention. I am curious about why these columns always seem to appear right about this time every year. It’s amazing how the number of women participating in the NRA Annual Meeting makes the absolute worst of the mainstream media come out when they must confront the fact that women can be independent thinkers on issues like self defense without feeling the need to turn to the gossip pages and opinion columns to find out what they are “supposed” to think.

As a side note, I’d be all over the bid sheet for that mink teddy bear if I wasn’t going to be too busy speaking at the Grassroots Workshop at the same time as the women’s luncheon.

The Narrative Continues

Even though by now it’s abundantly clear, based on witness statements, that Stand Your Ground had no bearing on this case, the narrative continues:

This stopped being about Trayvon Martin days ago. The media is now in a full court press to blame the laws, despite the current witness testimony that essentially reveal that Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shooting occurred. Duty to retreat is not at issue here. It can’t be at issue. Zimmerman had no means of retreat. The entire question, as I have said since the beginning, will hinge on whether Zimmerman is faultless.