The current verbal slugfest over gun rights and responsibilities versus public safety has brought the Second Amendment squarely into the spotlight, but at the same time, many are wondering whether those who make their living courtesy of the First Amendment are not exploiting one constitutionally-protected right to crush another.
The war against gun rights in the press is nothing new. The late Thomas Winship, former editor of the anti-gun Boston Globe and a columnist in Editor and Publisher, once authored a column in the latter publication that was headlined “Step up the war against guns.” In his diatribe – for that is what it was – Winship encouraged his press colleagues to engage in “a sustained newspaper crusade.” He called on editors to “Support all forms of gun licensing, in fact all causes the NRA opposes.”
It is time to square off against guns. We are talking about a sustained newspaper crusade.
At the time, I was on the editorial staff of the now-defunct Fishing & Hunting News in Seattle, and I fired off a letter to Editor & Publisher, which the magazine printed. I was not kind to Mr. Winship. Some time later, Reason magazine also took Winship to task.
Winship is gone, but the journalistic demagoguery that he was promoting is alive and well today. We’ve already discussed the despicably partisan treatment of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb during an MSNBC segment hosted by Hardball substitute host David Schuster.
When Gottlieb appeared on CNN with midday anchor Rich Sanchez, he was treated a little better, but both Sanchez and Schuster left viewers with no doubt about where they stand on the gun issue. It is both ironic and hypocritical of both cable network journalists to complain about people including Fox News’ Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, and talk jock Rush Limbaugh, yet demonstrate the very intolerance for an opposing view for which they criticize those other guys.
But the media’s war against gun rights is not confined to cable news networks.
Fox News analyist Juan Williams with National Public Radio candidly wrote in his current blog that, “I’d ban guns – big and little – for private use in the USA.” He would require that firearms be “kept on military bases or at places where target shooting is practiced.”
In a recent interview with Attorney General Eric Holder, CBS’ Katie Couric quizzed him about gun control in a segment that seemed more designed to promote renewal of the ban on so-called “assault weapons” and regulate gun shows than to merely ask Holder’s position; subtle to many viewers, but hardly lost on people who monitor the gun issue.
When Associated Press writer Deborah Hastings did a piece on the aftermath of the Pittsburgh shooting, it was headlined “Licensed to kill? Gunmen in killings had permits.” The story overlooked the fact that millions of American citizens have concealed carry permits or licenses, and they haven’t harmed anyone.
Back in January 1992, when Michael Gartner was president of NBC News, he did a piece for USA Today headlined “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?” In it, he wrote, “There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.”
I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution. -- Michael Gartner, former NBC News president, Jan. 16, 1992 USA Today
Recently, the small Mukilteo Banner, published in a suburban community north of Seattle, published an editorial that could have been written by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Publisher Paul Archipley complained that Washington State’s gun laws “are absurdly weak.”
The Media Research Center and News Busters keep an eye on this sort of thing, and my colleague Daniel White wrote about it the other day.
The bias in professional journalism against the Second Amendment is alarming, and if it does not concern newsmen and their editors, it should.
Nobody is suggesting that newspapers cannot take editorial positions against gun-related crime, nor is anyone arguing that people, even reporters and editors, cannot have a personal distaste for firearms, and choose not to have them in their homes.
What is being suggested is that those who don’t want firearms in their own lives should stop promoting the notion that everyone live by their standards. In a nation of free speech, freedom of the press and a tradition of personal liberty, the press needs to acknowledge that this freedom extends to gun ownership, and that if we so willingly allow one civil right to be trampled, we better prepare for all of them to suffer.
Read the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:
For more info: The Bias Against Guns
Comments
Press partisanship gets ugly in revived gun rights debate
It is easy to understand why the big name newspapers are going broke Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, etc.
They don't report an unbiased version of any news and are completely at the mercy of whomever has control of their companies at the time. Thank goodness for the internet!
Todays column by Ann Coulter about gun control nailed it. And all she has to do is tell the unvarnished truth.
What the purveyors of verbal flatulence in the media conveniently and purposefully ignore is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last summer that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Despite their thinly-veiled desire for a "line item veto" applied by politicians to our Bill of Rights, the cowards and tyrants who abuse the First Amendment to undermine our Constitution are as reprehensible as the criminals and miscreants who abuse the Second Amendment. No one, and I mean no one has the right to demand that the majority be rendered helpless based on the actions of a relative handful of psychotics so that elitists can feel "safer." Fortunately, propaganda sheets such as the Boston Globe and "journalists" such as Katie Couric continue their downward spiral into irrelevancy; after all, it isn't just guns they despise; their contempt encompasses almost any freedom enjoyed by Americans, because the lie that they constantly espouse and propagate clamors that freedom is too dirty, too expensive, too unfair and simply too dangerous to be enjoyed by this and future generations. Yes, there is an element of risk to living in a free society, and I for one am more than willing to assume that risk. America did not achieve her greatness by bleating "safety first," but rather by proclaiming "live free or die." Grow back your spine, America.
You wrote:
"many are wondering whether those who make their living courtesy of the First Amendment are not exploiting one constitutionally-protected right to crush another."
Perhaps the "undecided voters" who couldn't figure out their choice for president until they were in line at the polls are wondering, but everyone else pretty much has it figured out. The saddest thing is that we need to discuss the assault on our gun rights just before the 234'th aniversary of the gun control raid that resulted in the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, perhaps the most important yet forgotten date in American history.
In a perfect world, the press would be spending it's time closing the loopholes in our criminal justice system instead of braying to high heaven about the non existant "gun show loophole". If they were demanding that parole officers be as responsible for their charges as law abiding gun owners are being asked to be about their guns, we would all be living in a safer place and the NRA could go back to focusing on marksmanship and gun safety training.
I want a ban on assault newspapers.
Any print publication I don't like, actually.
These Democrat fascists are okay with that, right?
Have you noticed that those who would ban all guns in the US always seem to exempt the police from the ban? Why is that, I wonder? If none of us have guns, what possible need could the police have for them? In England when they had unarmed police and an armed public, they had minimal violent crime; now they have a disarmed public, armed police, and a lot more violent crime. HHMMMMMM...sounds like the solution is actually to ban the police carrying guns, rather than the public.
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."--Mark Twain
Letting police have guns is the same as handing out guns to the worst criminals in America. EVERYWHERE that I have lived, HAVE HAD MANY CORRUPT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES! And if you try and have this corruption investigated, OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES OPENLY TELL YOU THAT THEY GO ALONG WITH WHATEVER THE LOCALS POLICE WANT TO DO!!! They do NOT investigate corrupt law enforcement (it is rare to get an investigation started).
The news media WANTS to get rid of the second amendment. Then THEY have more power. As it is, I CONSTANTLY SEE THE NEWS FILLED WITH LIES! And I KNOW about these major lies, because I sometimes witnessed the crimes, and even REPORTED THE CRIMES TO AUTHORITIES, and still the news media does NOT want to hear what I SAW AND HEARD!!
Gun violence has nothing to do with guns but everything to do with violence. It's good to see these liberal trashy newspapers going out of business. People have the right to protect themselves guaranteed by the US constitution and government whether federal, state or local has no right to obstruct it. Being secure does not mean giving up your God-given freedoms to an overbearing federal Government. Let’s remember Government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.
remember folks- the thing that makes a criminal a criminal, is its propensity to trample the rights of others. Ergo, any and everyone who proposes, promotes and pushes for "gun control" is a criminal- even if they did not take the oath of office. A criminal, assuming he is living the golden rule, is saying take away my rights, when he tramples others' rights. OK. Lock them all up. and if they make a fuss, get mean about it. When a media person deliberately fails to report facts, and blatantly promotes treason, they need to find out exactly what fear for their life is like. We who have survived crime do not feel well at all to hear the constant drum beat of the terror the traitors are trying to inflict upon us. The only reason to disarm innocent folks is for EVIL INTENT. Folks, our government has been taken over by evil. Murder by proxy it is when the politicians disarm us, then empty the prisons! PolPot at least was honest enough to be an outright murderer. So, the traitors who get paid to live the oath do not. But, if WE LIVE THE OATH, we can be safe again within our own nation. They got paid to protect the nation- and the borders are STILL WIDE OPEN. Then they say the Americans need to be disarmed? FOR WHAT? EVIL! Wake up USA!!!
I suggest that any legislation requiring registration of a firearm be amended to include registering journalists.
I then suggest that any additional legislation restricting ownership of currently-legal firearms be amended to restrict speech by the registered journalists.
I finally suggest that any additional legislation to confiscate firearms (as in Australia and the UK) be amended to deport registered journalists.
It seems to me that a couple simple word substitutions would make the firearm legislation apply to journalists as well.
What ever happened to REAL journalism? Now I see why criminals and terrorists have been killing journalists. These so called,"Journalists," used to, report the facts. Now it is all personal opinion discized as true reporting. Can you blame them. Why sould you give a pass, read"press pass" to someone that isn't going to report the facts?
I used to think of those terrorist thugs that killed journalists as animals but now I think I can see why they do it. Our local home grown journalists attach our second ammendment because they don't believe in it. What ever happened to being neutral? If they want their opinion told it's called an editorial.
To bad the schools that create these biased opinionated writers and reporters are actually failing AMERICA.
The urban centered "Drive By" media who not coincidently, need the cooperation of city adinistrations in the filming of much of their sickie "entertainment" programing, appear to be rather selective, with a strong negative bias when it comes to the reporting of gun related incidents and issues. Bernard Goldberg in his book "Bias",provides some rather good documentation of this phenomenon. On the other hand, the NRA's monthly publication "American Rifleman" presents in each issue, a random selection of locally reported incidents in which the availability of a firearm was crucial in neutralizing dangerous and/or potentially deadly threats to ordinary,law abiding armed citizens.
Reality comes through inescapably clear when gun ban laws are geographically compared with violent crime demographics.
For a variety of reasons, both direct and indirect, restrictive gun laws appear consistently counterproductive to American life, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Two pernicious themes that are regular features of NYC/Hollywood written, produced and directed entertainment programs can't help but stimulate the anti social, violent and pathological elements of society.
One is graphic depiction of knife and gun violence to a point of desensitization of the psyche to blood, gore and suffering, along with chronic misrepresentation of citizen gun owners as being violent, malevolent, stupid or all three. The latter is such a gross perversion of truth and reality as to suggest that a small, closely knit self defining and self limiting group of urbanites is responsible for the material. The second is the staged graphic depiction of posed corpses, for the voyeuristic titilation of borderline Jeff Damers.
Government intervention? I don't know, but society is paying a price for their liberty.
GUESS WHAT YOU ANTI-FREEDOM, ANTI-GUN FASCISTS, FACTS ARE NOT NOR HAVE THEY EVER BEEN ON YOUR SIDE REGARDING GUNS. YOUR BANTER IS NOTHING MORE THAN WELL FUNDED PROPAGANDA THAT WOULD CAUSE JOSEPH GOEBBELS TO WET IN HIS PANTS FOR SUCH A WELL MADE PROPANDA MINISTRY AS YOUR ARE PART OF. BE ADVISED OF ONE THING FOR SURE. YOU MAY TRY FOR BANNING GUNS, HENCE OUR FREEDOM BUT THERE IS ONE THING THAT SEPARATES US FROM YOUR ILK. IT IS THAT WE WILL FIGHT WITH THOSE GUNS LONG BEFORE IT GETS TO THAT POINT TO PROTECT AND KEEP THAT FREEDOM THOSE GUNS PROTECT FROM YOUR PLUTOCRATIC CORRUPT REGIME RUN FROM TOP TO BOTTOM IN THIS LAND BUT CORRUPT SCUM BENT ON A WORLD ORDER THAT DWARFS HITLERS WET DREAM!!!COUNT ON IT
I can't wait for all these newspapers go out of business. Their anti-American views got them there. Long live talk radio!!!!!
Ban Newspapers
FLASH.......FROM THE GOV. OFFICE'S OF CONFORMITY ALL REFERENCE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE NOW FORBIDEN. ANYONE FOUND REFERING TO SUCH DOCUMENT WILL PAY WITH THERE FREEDOM AND OR LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nunyo
Mellow out Bud. Talk like that just makes you look like Poplawski.
UNSUBSTIATED CLAIMS BY THE PRESS THAT MERELY PARROT THE WORDS OF ANTI GUN POLITICIANS IS JOURNALISM WITHOUT RESEARCH.
TO WRITE AN ARTICLE SUPPORTING A BAN ON ASSAULT RIFLES SHOULD BE QUALIFIED BY THEIR CREDENTIALS FOR KNOWING WHAT AN ASSAULT RIFLE IS. HOLDER'S CLAIM THAT AN 870 REMINGTON IS AN ASSAULT RIFLE SHOWS ME HIS CREDENTIALS ALRIGHT. FOR ONE THING IT ISN'T A RIFLE. THE JOURNALIST THAT DOESN'T KNOW THAT IS PLAINLY ATTACKING THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND THE LEGAL GUN OWNER. THEY ARE NOT WRITING TO PROMOTE A SAFER SOCIETY.
A JOURNALIST WRITING EVEN AN OPINION ARTICLE SHOULD KNOW A PERSON CAN BE JUST AS INJURED OR JUST AS DEAD WITH A .22 CAL. AS A .50 CAL. THEY SHOULD NOT BE WRITING ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT IF THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT. ONCE AGAIN THEIR AGENDA IS NOT PROMOTING A SAFER SOCIETY. THEY ARE MERELY SPREADING A LIE THAT HAS A POLITICAL AGENDA.
ARTICLES ON GUN LEGISLATION SHOULD BE FACTUAL AND INFORMATIVE. UNFORTUNATELY SOME ARE NOT. THE ONE'S THAT ARE DO NOT GET PUBLISHED. WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? THE PUBLISHER SHOULD NOT GET THE GUN OWNERS BUSINESS AND WE SHOULD PROMOTE OUR POLITICAL AGENDA. CAPITALISM.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!