Posted on 04/09/2009 5:48:10 AM PDT by marktwain
We talk a lot about media bias, but sometimes the mainstream media goes so far beyond what should be acceptable fair and balanced reporting as to call into question their integrity.
On Friday night, ABC's World News dedicated a segment to complaining about what they see as a lack of government interest in enacting more stringent gun control laws as a means of combating violence. Said substitute host Diane Sawyer, "we keep hearing there is a gun for every man, woman and child in this country, and now they have gone up by that much more. But what about Congress? Is there any move in Congress to try to take some kind of action?"
Exactly what kind of action would she like to see? Like every other gun banner, she apparently sees the solution to gun crimes as taking guns away from the people who didn't commit the crime in the first place.
ABC didn't stop there. Yesterday morning on "Good Morning America," reporter David Muir continued the agenda-based "reporting" by proffering Michael Wolkowitz, a board member of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, as an expert on firearms without bothering to mention that he was basing his whole argument on propaganda.
In neither segment did ABC present the opposing viewpoint, choosing instead to promote their own biased agenda, including promoting yet another anti-gun piece they are planning to air this Friday entitled, "If I Only Had a Gun," which Sawyer noted included a segment highlighting that "since there is an impulse to think if I had a gun I could protect myself and others, we have an experience we'll conduct based on a real incident in which we show you what happens." I'm sure that reenactment will be completely unbiased and realistic, right?
Meanwhile, today is the 5 year anniversary of Ohio's concealed handgun license law. Northern Ohio's The News Herald ran an article covering this milestone and noted that Ohio sheriffs consider the program a success.
"Statistics have shown that in Ohio and across the United States, CCW laws have resulted in a reduction of violent crimes. They've given law-abiding private citizens a tool for protecting themselves," said Ralph Spidalieri, a Geauga County deputy sheriff and owner of Great Lakes Outdoor Supply, a retail outlet for guns and ammunition with stores in Chester Township and Middlefield.
"Originally, I was not a proponent," Lake County Sheriff Daniel A. Dunlap said. "With more people carrying weapons, I worried there would be a greater possibility of bad outcomes in dealings between law-enforcement officers and private citizens. I've been wrong more than once in my 38-year career. We haven't experienced any difficulties with concealed-carry beyond it creating a lot more work for our office."
Toby Hoover, Executive Director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence continues to oppose the law, and apparently has a selective memory.
"We never predicted bloodshed during all the years we fought against passage of this law."
Really? What about this 2001 article in the Cincinnati Enquirer that contained the following quotes from her organization?
John Shanks, Coalition: We believe immediate access and availability enhances chances for firearms violence. A case in point is two ladies in a recent road-rage incident. One of them reached in her glove box and pulled out a gun and shot the other one. When you introduce firearms, a situation that would not normally result in deadly violence can be tragic.
John Shanks, Coalition: Suppose some guy on a Sunday afternoon is consuming alcohol at the ballpark and it's 102 degrees. Tempers flare and that leads to tragic violence if he has a gun.
Toby Hoover, Coalition: We are looking to prevent accidents, homicides and suicides. When you increase access to something, you increase the things that can happen.
Hoover may not want to recall her organization's fear mongering since none of it came to pass, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. Concealed Carry works in Ohio, it works across the nation, and it isn't the good guys who are committing these violent crimes. No amount of bias is going to change those facts.
They are delusional.
ABC don't care 'bout no damn facts. Theys got "feelings"...
We need to enact tough restrictions on auto ownership immediately - take the cars out of the hands of the people - and provide nationwide central transportation funded by the government.
Delusional is about it. They never seem to realize that antigun laws take the guns away from responsible citizens, but the criminals still have ready access and could care less about the law.
Note the recent crime in Oakland, where a parolee (main problem) shot the four officers.
1) As a convicted felon, it was illegal for him to possess a gun.
2) The guns he had were completely illegal in California in the first place.
Yet, the antigunners continue to promote the lie that yet more laws would somehow fix things.
No, guns in the hands of responsible citizens will “fix things”. It sure has where it’s been tried.
As long as one person in the world is injured because of a stick match accident, the banning of stick matches MUST be a priority.
Feelings, and an agenda.
You have to ask why with all this change, hasn’t someone started a website to list all the advertisers for these news shows and make it available so people can write to them or even worse boycott them?
Just a little money making thought for these times...
Don’t forget those who are not necessarily against guns, they just believe that if everybody can’t have something (self-protection tools), then nobody can have them. In other words, it’s not fair that only certain people have the means to protect themselves. Equality via the lowest common denominator.
That really should be “on demand” ....transportation.
To give an inanimate object a moral quality is the ultimate in materialism. A gun is a tool. Nothing else. It doesn’t cause crime. Human free will is responsible for actions of people, and the use of tools.
They are mentally disturbed.
Donald Rumsfeld once made the statement that some people Don't know what they don't know.
This describes the useful idiot or insanely stupid Statist to a 'T'
In some ways the worst kind of person is one that doesn't know his or her own limitations. That think they are somehow an intellectual but are really moron who base their beliefs on emotional intelligence.
Logic dictates that laws only affect the law-abiding, and yet these morons on the left continue to go on and on thinking that some new law will somehow solve the problem, when it only makes things worse.
Its is a estanblished fact that “gun-free” zones are a dangerous idea – those on the left have the stupid notion that a nut case will stop at the sign that says 'no guns'.
And yet these morons push this and other stupid notions without ever looking back to see if something similar has even come close to having an effect.
The only thing that worse that the Insanely stupid Leftists, is the one that KNOW that their agendas and ideas Won't work as advertised, BUT DON'T CARE!!!!
These are the Statists who know that their policies are a load of Crap, but still push them because it is how they can seize and retain power.
Well, they aren't completely banned, but the white tip, strike anywhere matches are highly regulated.
To ship them you have to pay a “hazardous materials” fee.
That's why you don't see those in the stores anymore.
LLS
“In neither segment did ABC present the opposing viewpoint...”
Well, obviously, we need the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated so the news will be “Fair and Balanced”. (sarcasm)
Socialists truly suffer from mental illness and will not be happy until we all share and endorse their views.
I saw this report on ABC. They handled it the same way they handled the immigration bill bruhaha in the summer of ‘07: there are no valid alternative views (2/3 of the country is being unreasonable); this is how you should think on this issue.
“we keep hearing there is a gun for every man, woman and child in this country”
If that’s true, shouldn’t we all be dead by now, according to lib logic? I mean, considering accidental firings alone, that’s enough guns to do the terrorists’ work for them.
We talk a lot about media bias, but sometimes the mainstream media goes so far beyond what should be acceptable fair and balanced reporting as to call into question their integrity.
You just don't get it. The instant that you speak of "media bias" you have accepted the false premise that the First Amendment has some relationship to putative objectivity, "fairness," or "balance." It does not.The First Amendment refers to "the freedom . . . of the press" - referring not to any special right pertaining to some particular individual or group but to the right of the people to buy and operate printing presses on their own dime. The First Amendment itself does not treat the issue of the "Fairness Doctrine; refers only to technologies extant at the time of its adoption. But that does not mean that government censorship of broadcasting or the internet is constitutional; it merely vindicates the Federalists' fear that the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights were inherently inadequate. The Federalists' point was not in opposition to any right articulated in the Bill of Rights, but to the idea that all the rights of the people could be articulated and ratified in any "bill of rights."
Accordingly the First Amendment is to be understood, and has been understood, by the courts to be not a ceiling on the rights of the people but a floor under them. All the specific rights articulated in the Bill of Rights are therefore mere examples to illustrate the rights of the people. If the Constitution promotes "the progress of science and useful arts" (as it does in Section 8 of Article I) no one should be surprised at the development of "useful arts" which in some ways transcend the communication capabilities of in-person speech and/or the book or newspaper. Thus, presumptively, the people equally have the right to spend their own money to create and transmit programming in any medium which may be created. And may sell or give away access to that programming. Without any implication that the government certifies the "objectivity" or "fairness" or "balance" of that programming.
"Integrity of the mainstream media" has nothing to do with the case; it up to us to choose whether to give credence to media, and to consider them "mainstream."
However, I wouldn't call them libs or anything close to implying they have any interest in 'Liberty'.
Those people are Statists through and through and that is to anathema to liberty.
“The instant that you speak of ‘media bias’ you have accepted the false premise that the First Amendment has some relationship to putative objectivity, ‘fairness,’ or ‘balance.’ It does not.”
What are you on about? Nobody’s talking about government censorship. Integrity in reporting has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
“’Integrity of the mainstream media’ has nothing to do with the case; it up to us to choose whether to give credence to media, and to consider them ‘mainstream.’”
Whether or not one gives credence to consider ABC, for instance, a valuable news scource could very well depend on journalistic integrity, if that’s the sort of thing one values.
If the elite had to give up their private armed guards and walled compounds, they would scream bloody murder.
Nah. Most of the guns are in the hands of responsible people. I personally have quite a few that might otherwise have fallen into the hands of liberal idjits.
Accordingly the First Amendment is to be understood, and has been understood, by the courts to be not a ceiling on the rights of the people but a floor under them. All the specific rights articulated in the Bill of Rights are therefore mere examples to illustrate the rights of the people.
This is a point that Cannot be emphasized enough.
IIRC, they are having a “special” tommorow night(4-10-09) dedicated to the “gun rush” or something like that.
...20/20 maybe?
has ABC news given up private security in thier building and rely solely on the Police force?
no, then why should I?
Is that a confirmed fact?
It's important to remember that anything that looks at all like an "AK-47" is called that by the media. But there are many rifles built similarly to the semi-automatic version of the AK-47, but which have different names.
Some of these rifles are perfectly legal to own if one removes the pistol-grip. Did the killer have a pistol-grip on his rifle? If not, then it may have been perfectly legal for a law-abiding citizen to own it in Kalifornia.
What are you on about? Nobody’s talking about government censorship. Integrity in reporting has nothing to do with the First Amendment.“The instant that you speak of ‘media bias’ you have accepted the false premise that the First Amendment has some relationship to putative objectivity, ‘fairness,’ or ‘balance.’ It does not.”
"Integrity" in reporting has nothing at all to do with the First Amendment. I put "integrity" in scare quotes because since "Half the truth is often a great lie" (Franklin), there can never be proof that all of the significant facts of a story have been told, or if there is an unnoticed "dog who didn't bark" in the story. You may think you have told the whole story, and thus have a feeling of integrity - and yet you may have subsequent events confound your judgement. That's why you can't write history until long after the event.Indeed, I reject the idea that journalists can ever write "the first draft of history" for the simple reason that journalists systematically look for a specific part of the story. They only look for the portion of reality which is surprising and scary or otherwise stimulating. Journalists are demagogues who pander to the public. Just like "liberal" politicians do.
“I put ‘integrity’ in scare quotes because since ‘Half the truth is often a great lie’ (Franklin), there can never be proof that all of the significant facts of a story have been told, or if there is an unnoticed “dog who didn’t bark” in the story. You may think you have told the whole story, and thus have a feeling of integrity - and yet you may have subsequent events confound your judgement.”
You may very well believe that journalism as such is worthless, and that it can never tell the whole story. That may be true, but it’s not exactly the goal that journalists set themselves. The absolute truth is hard enough for philosophers, let alone guys who have to fill hours of tv and columns of print every day.
I submit that with or without telling the absolute truth, journalists still maintain their “integrity”. For what is integrity but consistency in using a system’s values, methods, etc. to achieve the goals one has set for himself. Integrity is not about the value of the goal; it’s about the methods used to get to the goal.
“That’s why you can’t write history until long after the event.”
Oh, history’s full of half-lies, too. For all the benefit we get from hindsight, there are also setbacks. There’s unreliability of evidence and over-abstraction, for instance. And however much you may scoff at journalism’s pretence of reporting “just the facts,” we don’t always come out on top when historians throw that overboard in favor of interpretation. Finally, some of the greatest histories have been written by authors contemporary to the events, such as Thucydides’ “History of the Pelloponesian War” and William L. Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”.
ABC must be eliminated. They are anti America and not worth their air
“For what is integrity but consistency in using a system’s values, methods, etc. to achieve the goals one has set for himself. Integrity is not about the value of the goal; it’s about the methods used to get to the goal.”
By which I mean to say, selecting certain parts of the story to highlight and lecturing the audience as to what the facts mean are all traditional methods, principles, and expectations of the journalism industry. Now, there obviously are obviously doubts as to the usefulness of the prevailing system of journalistic ethics. Otherwise why would the Dinosaur Media be dying? But just because an industry is dying doesn’t mean it doesn’t have integrity.
Not to say there isn’t a problem of integrity in contemporary journalism. There may very well be. But we can’t judge that by whether or not they fail to report the truth and nothing but. We have to judge them by their own standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.