The Media – Page 18 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Massad Ayoob on the Zimmerman Case

The whole thing is worth reading, but I have to agree with this part:

Iâ€™m seeing some defending Zimmerman, and most demanding his head on a platter, and a whole lot of people who donâ€™t understand how the justice system is geared to approach these things.

Emphasis is mine, which to me is the biggest disappointment in this case. Part of the duty of an effective media should be to educate citizens on issues. Self-defense law is a complex issue, and difficult for lay people, who have no exposure to how the legal system works, or how law in general works, to really wrap their heads around. As far as I’ve seen, the media has made no real attempt to speak with actual experts, or give anything more than a superficial look at the legal issues surrounding this case. There has been a narrative the media has wished to maintain, and they have maintained it. Educating the public has been thrown out the window.

This is the Old Media I Remember

With the exception of one panel in this series of cartoons, you can see the media bringing forth the same bigoted stereotypes of gun owners, along with a complete lack of willingness to seriously discuss a complex topic. This is what we have come to love the media for. As a blogger, this makes me happy, since it just drives more people to alternative and new media.

The Gift Wrapped Tragedy

Much like the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, the Treyvon Martin shooting is the kind of tragedy that’s positively gift wrapped for our opponents in the gun control movement and the media, and they are exploiting the tragedy to the hilt.

Bloomberg News notes that it shows the weakness of American gun laws. The Tampa Bay Times, who are renowned experts on self-defense law, note the problems with Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, even though there’s no evidence at all yet that a duty to retreat would have played into these circumstances. The New York Times is certainly quick to jump in to blast Florida law, even though New York City’s laws are roughly the same. But of course the New York Times knew that, being such strong experts in these matters. The distinguished law professors at CNN tell us that the stand your ground law seems central to this case. Another post at a New York Times blog who don’t realize their law is the same as Florida’s and always has been. Even the National Review, apparently friendly to self-defense interest when the going is easy, run with their tail between their legs when the going gets tough.

It’s a gift to our opponents because it has folks talking about gun control, vigilantes, and wild, out of control redneck gun nuts. Tragedy may be our opponent’s currency, but demographic stereotypes are their natural manure. Any time they can people to surrender all reason, get angry, and act based solely on their emotions, it’s fertile ground. We should be on guard. I do not defend Zimmerman’s actions, but we have to be prepared to defend our rights from those who would exploit the shooting for their own political gain.

Great Article on the State of the Gun Culture

From Patrick Jonsson of the Christian Science Monitor. It’s a very realistic and very fair look at both sides of the debate. While fair and realistic can be boring sometimes, I think he takes a look at things to a deep enough degree to really grasp the depth and breadth of the gun culture, including the parts people don’t expect, like the transplant from New York to North Carolina, who is passionate about gun rights, to the native North Carolinian who is fairly ambivalent about guns.

Give it a read.

Two Wolves & a Sheep Voting on Dinner – Anti-Gunners & the Media

Emotionally charged questions that leave out important context to a debate? Check.
Misrepresenting pro-gun groups? Check.
Lies? Check.
Radical policy statements that go ignored by reporters? Check.
Callers who are convinced it’s all a conspiracy? Check.

Why, I do believe we have all the mandatory requirements for an hour of conversation about Second Amendment rights on NPR.

It started this morning with alerts for multiple tweets from NPR’s Philly station WHYY claiming that representatives from @PAGunRights would be on their station debating anti-gun advocates. Well, this would be news to anyone who has ever contributed to the PAGunRights.com site since no current or former volunteer contributor that I know of was speaking to them.

Even though NPR was claiming that “individuals” (plural) from the pro-gun side would be on the show, they actually on had one speaker for the Second Amendment from NRA-ILA. Meanwhile, they hosted two anti-gun folks, one professional group leader and the other a member of Bloomberg’s group. Fair and balanced means two against one, apparently. Not to mention, the host was blatantly biased. Here as some examples of the absurdity pushed by the NPR host:

When asking NRA’s representative about their support for state preemption laws, the host phrased the question as, “Why is NRA against police chiefs?” No, I’m not kidding.
When CeaseFirePA’s leader called for lost and stolen violations to be felonies AND for them to remain municipal offenses, at no point was he questioned about what the means for completely changing the legal system in Pennsylvania which limits felonies to state charges. Nope, upending the entire state justice system apparently requires zero follow-up.
While CeaseFirePA’s leader claimed anti-gun people didn’t know about a hearing on the strengthened preemption bill which essentially asserts that they violated sunshine laws, the host let it slide when he later contradicted himself admitting that their legislative supporters knew about it three days before a committee hearing. Fortunately, NRA was able to at least point out that legislators did not violate any laws.
The host let a caller propose making lost and stolen reporting a federal offense, but never once questioned how that would work. Instead, it was treated as a perfectly reasonable suggestion instead of raising any kind of question about which federal agencies would be responsible for handling it or how exactly charges of violating the ordinance would work when there are already few federal prosecutions for actual straw purchasing cases.

Back to the content of the guests and the callers, MAIG’s Pennsylvania representative on the show advocated for lost and stolen laws to be felonies as well, but also specified that he encouraged a patchwork of laws across Pennsylvania that will ensnare lawful gun owners. It looks like Bloomberg’s position on NYC laws are spreading.

The callers I heard were just absurd. I think it’s funny the rightwing talk radio has the reputation for attracting conspiracy callers because there was woman who was convinced that because one NRA employee could not recall an exact number for campaign contributions donated to all Pennsylvania politicians, it was clearly evidence that NRA was simply buying off lawmakers. Never mind that it was pointed out that it is all a matter of public record that she herself could look up. Never mind that NRA has hundreds of thousands of members in the state. It never even occurred to her that there was any reason a legislator would vote for the Second Amendment other than being bought.

A number of other callers were mysteriously disconnected before being allowed to speak, so the only voices I heard were anti-gun. I know what to expect out of NPR on the issue of Second Amendment rights, but this was over-the-top even by their standards.

On Not Being an Activist

Thirdpower highlights an Illinois lobbyist, Brady Campaign volunteer, National Gun Victims Action Council board member, and spokesman for gun control issues who convinces the press that he’s not a formal activist. And what is it about those traditional media outlets that claim the benefit from the presence of editors?

NYT Worries Philly Papers to Become Democratic Propaganda Tools

I had to laugh. According to the coverage of the potential sale of the two primary Philadelphia newspapers, the New York Times seems concerned that the papers will become nothing more than mouthpieces for the Democratic Party and union leaders. I would like to ask them how that is any different than it is today.

The NYT breaks down the coverage by the papers about their own sale. The CEO called his senior editors into a three hour meeting to demand editorial control over all stories regarding the potential sale of the papers. Of course, he denies it. (Well, he ultimately admitted it, but still tries to deny it.) Then one of the bloggers did a story about another group of buyers not lead by local Democratic leaders, and the paper deleted the post. Of course, they deny it. (Well, they ultimately admitted they deleted it, but still try to deny they meant to delete that post.) In other words, it’s deny, deny, deny until they are proven wrong, then it’s concede a little, but deny, deny, deny the fact that they have actually become shills for the local political party and its leaders who are trying to buy them.

Why would the NYT be concerned about two papers in another state becoming a formal propaganda tool for the Democratic Party? Well, it appears that the lead buyer, Governor Ed Rendell, has a history of getting a bit too “hand on” with the press.

Mr. Rendell has a complicated relationship with the media, which may have reached a low point in 1994 when he clamped his hand around the neck of Amy S. Rosenberg, an Inquirer reporter who was questioning him about potentially losing federal money for the homeless.

I kid you not when I say that his spokeswomen actually defends the action as a reflection of a guy who is “an extremely engaging, friendly person.” I don’t know too many women who consider the hands of man she doesn’t know wrapped around her neck as a friendly action.

Oh, it should be noted that Rendell has promised the CEO gets to keep his job if his group buys the paper. So clearly, the CEO has no personal financial interest in making sure Rendell gets favorable coverage. Deny, deny, deny.

Pissing Off the Right People in Philly

Monica Yant-Kinney, columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, is a well known mouth foamer when it comes to gun topics. Her latest article speaks against the new bill, HB1523, to, you know, actually enforce state law on the matter of firearms preemption.

Furious at lawmakers who killed the lost-and-stolen bill, city officials began taking small steps to protect their own. By 2009, nine cities – including Philadelphia, Lancaster, Reading, Pottsville, and Allentown – passed lost-and-stolen ordinances. To date, 30 brave towns have.

And how many criminals have been prosecuted? One? Two? The best answer I have is a fat zero. Explain to me how this law is so important if it isn’t even being used?

Pennsylvania gun laws are a sick joke. Any state that happily sells buyers unlimited weapons on demand is a state where politicians fear the wrath of the NRA more than the loss of their own lives.

Perhaps New Jersey would be more to Ms. Yant-Kinney’s liking. It’s just across the river. Please go, and take you voting habits with you. The fact of the matter is Pennsylvania’s constitution says, as is reflected in the title of this blog, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” Perhaps lawmakers in Pennsylvania don’t fear the NRA so much as they can read the plain language that they took an oath to uphold.

No wonder the Inquirer is going down the toilet.

The Inquirer: Thinking It’s Readers are Fools Since 1829

The Inquirer editorial board is incensed that the legislature is even thinking about enforcing state law. Do they even bother to look at the facts? Of course not. Facts are optional in today’s journalism:

Pennsylvania legislators, forever beholden to the gun lobby it seems, want to kill lost-or-stolen ordinances enacted by a number of Pennsylvania towns to help fight illegal gun trafficking.

The ordinances, passed by 30 communities, require lawful gun owners to report it to police when their firearms have been lost or stolen.

Can the Inquirer name a single case where any of these towns or cities have used to ordinance to go after straw buyers? Can they even name a case of anyone being fined? No, they can’t. They can’t because to the best of my knowledge, this critical, badly needed law has never been used. That’s rather shocking when anti-gun activists and anti-gun politicians acted like the sky was going to fall if they didn’t pass these ordinances.

I am also amazed that the Inquirer has the temerity to suggest Pennsylvania does not have adequate “straw buyer” laws, when it imposes felony sentences on the behavior, and the state outlaws all private transfers of handguns, and has since 1934. Very few other states have such a restriction. If the Inquirer wants to editorialize like these laws don’t exist, pardon us if we get busy working to make that a reality.

The Vacuous Media

I’ve recently watched The Today Show, only to be reminded of that scene in the movie Fargo where Mrs. Lundegaard is watching some super cheesy daytime talk show, right before Grimsrud and Showalter come crashing through the sliding glass door. Today is pretty much that same vacuous dreck.

So it’s not surprising they are latching on to gun control. This reeks of Bloomberg. Here’s the press release regarding the promotion of the reporter doing this story. They are losing women fast. What they don’t realize is that fewer and fewer people are watching, particularly in the age groups they need to reach to hold on to women.