The Media... Left or Right?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by BB Gun
DMD,

did *you* read BIAS?

C'mon guys, its a quick read.

BB

Don't think we are all gonna run out and get it.. why don't you fill us in?

[BB Gun]

*sigh*

I'll grab the book when I get home and post some relevant quotes.

In the meantime, google Bernard Goldberg BIAS and you'll get a ton of links.  Unfortunately, I can't say if they are still valid links, our work proxy seems to be choking at the moment.

BB

[Dune]

Right or left, the mainstream media is violently against guns:

TIME Misrepresents BATF Firearm Transaction Tracing Data

7/23/02

TIME magazine long ago admitted that its position on "gun control" is that of an advocate. In 1982, it declared, "The point has now been reached where, in our judgment, the solution is not tighter controls but an outright ban. . . . A nationwide ban on private possession of handguns . . . would be a start--a movement in the direction of common sense and responsible social policy." In 1989, it said, "The time for opinions on the dangers of gun availability is long since gone, replaced by overwhelming evidence that it represents a growing threat to public safety." And over the years, TIME has periodically published articles intended to generate public support for restrictions on guns.

On July 12, 2002, TIME.com, the magazine's website, ran "America's Most Wanted Guns: A new ATF study reveals the country's Top 10 crime guns," an article by Elaine Shannon of the magazine's Washington Bureau. Shannon's central claim: that BATF's firearm transaction traces had identified "The top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. in 2000."

The claim was incorrect in two respects. First, the "10 guns" are not the types of guns that were most often used to commit crimes, they were the types of guns that for various reasons were most often traced. The distinction is important, because most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, many have not been used to commit any crimes, and most guns that are used to commit crimes are never traced. Second, traces are not representative of anything nationally, let alone criminal gun use. BATF acknowledges that its tracing system is "not designed to provide a representative sample of the United States, or even of large urban jurisdictions." Similarly, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says, "Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe."

A trace is not a scientific process by which a gun is linked to a crime scene. A "trace" is a procedure in which BATF, in an effort to identify persons involved in repetitive illegal sales of guns, contacts a particular gun's manufacturer or importer, asks to whom the gun was sold, and repeats the inquiry through the chain of commerce as far as it can. Tracing statistics should not be confused with those that state and local law enforcement agencies compile on the kinds of weapons that have been used to commit crimes.

According to the CRS, "data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes." This is because of the reasons noted above and because traces are often disproportionately conducted on guns in which there is a particular political interest. For example, police reports have always shown very little use of "assault weapons" in crime, but those guns were frequently traced during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when they were a hot "gun control" issue. For additional information on how BATF traces have been misrepresented to promote restrictions on guns, visit http://www.nraila.org/search.asp and type the word "traces."

Posted: 8/1/2002

The "Public" Broadcasting Service and Bill Moyers are using your tax dollars to deliver their biased view of the Second Amendment to the nation's high schools.
by Robert G. Pew

It is well documented that the media elite are hostile to Second Amendment rights. That hostility is now taking shape in a direct effort to influence the way American children are taught about civil liberties.

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program now with Bill Moyers has included on its Web site (http://www.pbs.org/now/classroom/gun.html) an extensive "lesson plan" for teachers to instruct their high school students about the Second Amendment. Its title is the first sign that objectivity will not be a paramount goal: "Gun Control and Terrorism: Laws or Loopholes."

While the plan arguably has a paper-thin veneer of balance, an examination of the materials recommended as resources and the links provided to information sources quickly reveals that this "plan" has an ulterior motive: to promote the view that there is no individual right to bear arms.

The plan admits that NRA is a part of this debate, but provides only the most general information on NRA activities and positions, while providing specific links to fact sheets and opinion pieces from the gun-ban lobby--groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Of the 12 people appearing in the piece, one is neutral, two are pro-gun rights and nine are hard-line anti-gun zealots such as u.s. Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jack Reed, D-R.I. And that does not include the "reporter," Deborah Amos, who takes a pointedly anti-gun rights view throughout her report. Fairness is nowhere to be seen in this "lesson plan."

The PBS Web site promotes a November 2002 episode of now described as an "in-depth report of gun control and terrorism." In reality, however, it is simply an attack on Attorney General John Ashcroft and the rights of gun owners. The "in-depth report" makes no attempt to provide facts, instead providing a forum for an anti-gun diatribe. PBS' message is clear: America's lax gun laws allow terrorists to arm themselves, and, therefore, the rights of law-abiding gun owners should be curtailed and their privacy invaded. The show fails to provide, however, any real evidence that the claims have merit.

The plan relies on sensationalized, politically charged hit pieces, such as the article "How u.s. Dealers Arm the World" from the hard-left The Nation as a resource recommended for teachers and students. It also provides direct links to two "fact sheets" from VPC that try to tie our Second Amendment freedoms to terrorists. It fails, however, to provide meaningful links to accurate, dispassionate information on firearms, firearms laws or the Second Amendment.

Most glaringly, the plan purports to lead a discussion in the meaning of the Second Amendment, but studiously ignores the multitude of scholarly articles that present the real issues of this debate. While the Brady Campaign's distorted and ill-conceived arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment are linked to directly, there is not even a partial listing of the myriad independent scholarly articles that have been written on the origins and evolution of the right to bear arms in America.

There is no reference to law journal articles or comprehensive studies by leading scholars such as William Van Alstyne, Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Cottrol, Clayton Cramer, Stephen Halbrook, Don B. Kates, David Kopel, Sanford Levinson, Nelson Lund, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Glenn Harlan Reynolds or Eugene Volokh, to name but a few. All these scholars have published widely on the right to keep and bear arms, and their research supports the historically accurate view that the Second Amendment protects an individual--not a collective--right.

The bias continues throughout the information provided. One link provides a "history" of gun control laws, with prefacing remarks that lament the lack of new gun control legislation or the passage of handgun registration. Moyers even provides a link to a site called "Sane Guns" which provides a "History of the NRA" that is simply an undisguised--but embarrassingly sloppy--attack on the Association. Perhaps it never occurred to Moyers to allow NRA to provide its own brief history. The message is easy to understand: current and additional gun laws are vital, reasonable and needed, and the "special interest" gun lobby is standing in the way of the national good.

This is not the first attack on the Second Amendment that has been financed by PBS with your tax dollars. It is simply the latest. However, its target should be of particular concern to all who value our liberties and the quality of education our youth receive.

By attempting to turn classrooms into echo chambers of anti-Second Amendment dogma, Moyers and PBS erode public trust in our schools.The future of our rights can only be protected if our children are taught that the fight is constant. To continue the fight, they must be armed with the truth, not shackled by revisionist history force fed them by an anti-gun elite. This effort by PBS to undermine the Second Amendment by spreading anti-gun propaganda in our schools will only succeed if we stand by and silently allow it.

[Dune]

This is from the Washington Times:

CNN rapped over gun segment


By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



    CNN has found itself the target of criticism for misleading viewers about the types of weapons prohibited by a federal law due to expire next year.
    Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by the sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true.
    "In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact," CNN's John Zarella told viewers yesterday.
    One of the Thursday broadcasts incorrectly reported that fully automatic weapons are included in the 1994 ban on 19 types of semiautomatic rifles. Fully automatic firearms have been federally regulated since 1934.
    "Either it was a deliberate attempt to fake the story, or the reporter had a complete ignorance of the story he's covering," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
    In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned." Mr. Zarella, CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently banned weapons."
    In fact, that weapon is not covered by the 1994 ban.
    After the detective fired six shots, Mr. Zarella said: "OK. Now that was semiautomatic," and Sheriff Jenne said: "Now this is automatic."
    The detective then fired a machine-gunlike burst at a cinder-block target, prompting Mr. Zarella to exclaim: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. ... Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference."
    Fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns and AK-47s, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not among the semiautomatic guns prohibited by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
    The 1994 law — which will expire in September 2004 if Congress does not renew it — banned some military-style rifles that are semiautomatic, meaning they fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled.
    The NRA and other gun rights groups say the banned guns are only "cosmetically" different than many legal types of firearms, and that the news media have consistently confused the semiautomatics with fully automatic weapons, such as the M-16.
    "This whole ban was lied into law 10 years ago, and it seems to me we can do better than lying again," Mr. LaPierre said.
    Yesterday, CNN aired another broadcast that clarified which weapons are banned under the 1994 law, saying the ban is based on whether the gun has external features, such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip.
    A CNN anchor introduced yesterday's segment by saying: "On this program on Thursday, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We reviewed that demonstration and one on another CNN program, and decided that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue."
    "We caught them red-handed, in the act. Now they're backpedaling," Mr. LaPierre said after yesterday's broadcast.
    In the first of the two segments that aired Thursday, a Broward County detective fired the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode, and the camera showed bullets hitting a cinder-block target. The detective then fired a legal semiautomatic weapon, and CNN showed a cinder-block target with no apparent damage. On Friday, CNN admitted that the detective had not been firing at the cinder block.
    Some law enforcement officers who saw the Broward County sheriff's presentation on CNN called the NRA to say they were "horrified that a law enforcement official would mislead the public this way," said "NRA Live" host Ginny Simone.
    In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator, supported a bill in the Florida Legislature, HB-363, that would have banned several types of rifles under a broad definition of "assault weapons" and also would have prohibited many handguns. The bill died in committee.

[midnight Target]

Oh...THAT Bernie Goldberg..

Funny how I was just reading about him. Chapter 6 of Al Franken's latest book is titled "I *****slap Bernie Goldberg".

Here is a small taste: (I will give only the highlights for brevity and because I don't type so good.)

There is a chapter in "BIAS" called "The most important story you never heard" about latchkey kids and working mothers.

Franken shows (with back-up information) that through Dec. 2001 there have been CNN 11 stories, CBS 11 stories, NBC 3 stories, ABC 10 stories. Now thats 35 stories about the most important story you never heard.. hmmmmmmm?

[Momus--]

Originally posted by ra

Whatever. You're the one alleging some evil liberal conspiracy in the media. The US has a relatively free media market; are you claiming that the market has failed somehow? If you're claiming that the media does not reflect the views of ordinary americans, then the implication is that the free market is failing somewhat. Is this what you're saying?

The news networks along with the whole US media in general just follow the money. It's a simple formula; don't piss off the sponsors and advertisers and pander to the prejudices of your viewers.

If there's any potential for bias, you only have to look at who owns the major networks to realise that any bias is likely to be to the so-called "right".

Don't let it spoil your little fantasy of victimhood at the hands of the evil liberals though.

[ra]

Originally posted by Momus--
Whatever. You're the one alleging some evil liberal conspiracy in the media. The US has a relatively free media market; are you claiming that the market has failed somehow? If you're claiming that the media does not reflect the views of ordinary americans, then the implication is that the free market is failing somewhat. Is this what you're saying?

The news networks along with the whole US media in general just follow the money. It's a simple formula; don't piss off the sponsors and advertisers and pander to the prejudices of your viewers.

If there's any potential for bias, you only have to look at who owns the major networks to realise that any bias is likely to be to the so-called "right".

Don't let it spoil your little fantasy of victimhood at the hands of the evil liberals though.

Who said anything about conspiracy?  You did.

[Momus--]

I did? Where?

The common thrust of the "right's" argument is that the "liberal" media deliberately distorts coverage in order to push a certain  agenda.  Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, and it's quite clear you subscribe to the general thesis. Does the tin foil hat suit you?

[Rude]

Miko.....still waiting

[Mini D]

Since when does bias translate to conspiracy?

Seeing news anchors cry because a republican was elected doesn't really denote a conspiracy... but it pretty much screams bias.

The media loved the 90's because they were used like the tool they are by the Clinton administration.  They're trying to get that back by helping this administration out the door in hopes of a media friendly replacement that will recognize their contribution and potential power.  That's not a conspiracy theory... it's cause and effect.  They don't need to conspire... just to make sure they dig in the right places and put the dirt in the right places.

MiniD

[ra]

Originally posted by Momus--
I did? Where?

The common thrust of the "right's" argument is that the "liberal" media deliberately distorts coverage in order to push a certain  agenda.  Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, and it's quite clear you subscribe to the general thesis. Does the tin foil hat suit you?

"The whole thing is a clever smoke-and-mirrors trick in much the same way as is the equally bogus left vs right proposition that dominates modern political discourse."

Sounds like conspiracy to me.

[BB Gun]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh...THAT Bernie Goldberg..

Funny how I was just reading about him. Chapter 6 of Al Franken's latest book is titled "I *****slap Bernie Goldberg".

Here is a small taste: (I will give only the highlights for brevity and because I don't type so good.)

There is a chapter in "BIAS" called "The most important story you never heard" about latchkey kids and working mothers.

Franken shows (with back-up information) that through Dec. 2001 there have been CNN 11 stories, CBS 11 stories, NBC 3 stories, ABC 10 stories. Now thats 35 stories about the most important story you never heard.. hmmmmmmm?

Sorry, was son's birthday and he's had 4 friends over monopolizing the computers in the house.  At any rate...

The chapter was NOT solely about "whether there were stories about latchkey kids".  He plainly tells about the latchkey kids stories.  What the chapter was about, was how the stories were ALWAYS the same - that "the solution" was always more daycare funding, after school programs, etc etc etc.  That the stories, except in a VERY few instances, did not take a deeper look into the social issues surrounding latchkey kids.

If that's how Franken "debunks" people,  you guys who read him are being led down the primrose path.  Hope it smells good down there.

And if you choose to believe AL FRANKEN, failed comedian and political agitator, over Bernard Goldberg, a nearly 30-year CBS newsman - well,  there's not much more I can say about how you choose your sources, is there?

*shrug*

Read the book.  Its at the library, so it free.  And its fast.

A few paragraphs about his "epiphany"

...Hurricane Andrew...*snip* ...brought me into contact...*snip*...with a good old boy named Jerry Kelley, a chain smoking, fifty-something building contractor who grew up in Enterprise Alabama.

Jerry Kelley saved my family and me.  He repaired the damage the hurricane had done to our house.  He was always there when we needed him. And we bacame friends, a kind of odd couple.  We talked often, mostly about politics and current events, which he loved.
...*snip*...
On Feb 8, 1996, Jerry Kelley called me at home, wondering whether I had caught the CBS Evening News that night. *snip*...he told me to get a tape of the news and watch it.  Then "you tell me if there's a problem."
...*snip*
...
Rather introduced Engberg's piece with the standard stuff about how it would "look beyond the promises to the substance"...Engberg's voice covered pictures of Steve Forbes on the campaign trail.  "Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everthing that ails us."
 Scheme? Elixer? what the hell kind of language is that, I wondered?  These were words that conjured up images of con artists, like Doctor Feelgood selling worthless junk out fo the back of his wagon.

But that was just a little tease to get us into the tent.  Then Engberg interviewed three different tax experts.  Every single one of them opposed the flat tax.  Every single one!  Where was the fairness and balance Rather was always preaching about? Weren't there any experts - even one - in the entire United States who thought the flat tax might work?

Of course there were...Mitlon Friedman and Merton Miller, James Buchanan, Harvey Rosen, William Poole,  Robert Barro  

Engberg sould have found a bunch of economists to support the flat tax, if he had wanted to.  But putting on a support of the flat tax would have defeated the whole purpose of the piece, which was to have a few laughs at Steve Forbes's expense."

...Engberg decided to play David Letterman and do a takeoff of his Top Ten list.
"Forbes's Number One Wackest Flat-Tax Promise," Engberg told the audience, is the candidate's belief that it would give parents "more time to spend with their children and each other."
...snip...
Maybe its true, and maybe it isn't, but is "wacky" the fairest and most objective way to describe it?

Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plane "wacky"?

There's more, but this is what we are talking about when we say "biased" - the language chosen  (liberal think tanks are "think tanks"  conservative think tanks are "conservative" or "right wing" think tanks) etc etc etc.

All words and phrases chosen because they sound ok to the anchors, writers and newspeople, who don't even stop to question how it sounds or how the words pass judgement.  Its innate, not designed.

Al Franken or Bernie Goldberg.  Take your pick.

BB

[midnight Target]

Al Franken or Bernie Goldberg. Take your pick.

BB

I choose the "failed comedian" over the "failed newsman".

[BB Gun]

ROFL.

Says a lot about ya.



I hardly think someone who spent nearly 30 years in the business counts as a "failure".   And yes, he is a newsman and we're arguing about bias in the media, so it seems funny.  But he was there.  He lived it.  You choose not to believe it.  Your choice.  Ignorance is bliss.

BB

PS - you might want to read chapter 8.

[Sixpence]

Rush is on ESPN, nuff said.