Media slant changing on gun issues
By Dr. Michael S. Brown
web posted January 29, 2001
American news organizations have been accused of having an
anti-gun bias for decades. A study by the Media Research
Center, for example, claimed a 10 to 1 bias in stories broadcast
on network evening news programs during 1999. There are,
however, some indications that this situation is slowly changing.
During the 2000 election, media outlets devoted an unusual
amount of attention to the viewpoints of gun owners and gun
rights organizations. An unprecedented number of these stories
showed a distinct effort, not always successful, to avoid bias and
present both sides of the issue fairly. In some cases, it was mildly
comical to watch on-air reporters and pundits attempt to
neutralize their usual slant.
Even the often maligned National Rifle Association received
more balanced treatment than normal. NRA president Charlton
Heston was the focus of much media coverage as he
crisscrossed the country prior to the election. Reporters seemed
to be in awe of his dramatic speeches which were delivered to
large crowds of passionate gun owners.
After NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre stood up to Bill
Clinton early in the campaign season, he was invited to appear
on several television programs. The organization's operations and
internal conflicts were covered in depth by ABC news in a one
hour special report that was amazingly fair until the final segment,
when Peter Jennings revealed his personal bias in a big way. The
spectacular rise in NRA membership (to 4.2 million) was
mentioned constantly during the campaign by numerous sources.
This trend seems to be continuing beyond the election season.
After the recent murders in Wakefield, Massachusetts, the first
opinions printed by several newspapers emphasized the fact that
strict gun laws in that state simply disarmed the victims without
hindering the killer.
Although this reduction in the media's anti-gun bias is far from
complete, it is interesting to speculate on the cause. Perhaps
journalists have developed a guilty conscience about their ethical
lapses. Perhaps they have finally realized that a mountain of
evidence shows the futility and counterproductive results of gun
control laws. But a somewhat more cynical explanation may be
the simple desire of all journalists to tell a good story.
Imagine the task of a reporter assigned to research and write a
story on some aspect of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side
there is the usual cast. Start with the limousine liberals like Teddy
Kennedy, Rosie O'Donnell and Diane Feinstein. They repeat the
same tired, hypocritical message urging passage of laws to
outlaw gun ownership for ordinary people while everyone knows
they have guns of their own or are protected by armed
bodyguards.
You also have the anti-gun organizations like Handgun Control
Inc., which represents the views of its ultra-rich benefactors, and
the insipid Million Mom March, which uses their own massive
donations from wealthy foundations in a contrived effort to
generate interest among American soccer moms and support for
Democratic Party candidates. From a reporter's point of view,
these groups are just plain boring.
Now consider the interesting stories and fascinating characters
on the other side of the issue:
In New Jersey, a group of African-American shooting
enthusiasts started the Tenth Cavalry Gun Club. They are so
successful that they are now opening chapters in other areas.
Stories about this group explode the myth that gun enthusiasts
must be white, as do stories about the group of Filipino shooters
called the 1521 Sportsman Association.
In Nevada, Dr. Ignatius Piazza is creating a city in the desert that
will be built around a complex of shooting ranges. Since every
family will be armed to the teeth, it will probably be the safest
and most polite city in America. To promote his enterprise he
offers popular classes to teach anyone, even soccer moms, to
shoot actual Uzi submachine guns.
In Merced, California, there was the dramatic story of the
pitchfork murders. In this sad case, three small children were
murdered in their home by a madman wielding a pitchfork. Their
older sister, who was capable of using the family rifle for self
defense, was unable to reach it because her father believed he
was required by law to keep it locked up.
In almost any part of the country you can find dramatic stories of
women who have aided their recovery from rape or assault by
learning the art of armed self defense. They vow that they will
never be victimized again. Some of them have used their new
skills to survive a second assault. There are powerful, emotional
stories here. Women empowering other women by passing on
firearms skills is becoming a major theme in the gun culture.
Others are rediscovering their heritage as outdoorswomen by
learning to shoot and hunt.
Stories like this are becoming easier to find as authors and
reporters uncover these dramatic events. A good example is a
book by Robert A. Waters: "The Best Defense - Stories of
Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm".
When the media filters out stories like these to satisfy their own
bias, they are missing an opportunity to attract a larger audience.
The era of political correctness is slowly drawing to a
close.Journalists who wish to stand out from their peers are
finding an amazing variety of interesting stories within the
politically incorrect American gun culture. In many cases their
story proposals are spiked by editors and producers who still
feel a political connection to the anti-gun lobby, but a growing
number of positive stories about gun owners are appearing on
the air or in print.
This trend will accelerate as a larger number of media outlets are
forced to compete for the same audience. Control of television
news divisions is passing from old-line liberal journalists to
pragmatic businessmen who know that alienating (or boring) a
large portion of the audience harms the bottom line. The old anti-
gun bias that has been a staple of American media culture for
over 30 years is slowly fading as the nature of the business
changes.
Although things are improving, this is not the time for gun rights
activists to relax. Messages from viewers and readers will have
more impact than ever as news executives search for clues to
audience preferences.
Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and a member of
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, on the web at
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com
By Dr. Michael S. Brown
web posted January 29, 2001
American news organizations have been accused of having an
anti-gun bias for decades. A study by the Media Research
Center, for example, claimed a 10 to 1 bias in stories broadcast
on network evening news programs during 1999. There are,
however, some indications that this situation is slowly changing.
During the 2000 election, media outlets devoted an unusual
amount of attention to the viewpoints of gun owners and gun
rights organizations. An unprecedented number of these stories
showed a distinct effort, not always successful, to avoid bias and
present both sides of the issue fairly. In some cases, it was mildly
comical to watch on-air reporters and pundits attempt to
neutralize their usual slant.
Even the often maligned National Rifle Association received
more balanced treatment than normal. NRA president Charlton
Heston was the focus of much media coverage as he
crisscrossed the country prior to the election. Reporters seemed
to be in awe of his dramatic speeches which were delivered to
large crowds of passionate gun owners.
After NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre stood up to Bill
Clinton early in the campaign season, he was invited to appear
on several television programs. The organization's operations and
internal conflicts were covered in depth by ABC news in a one
hour special report that was amazingly fair until the final segment,
when Peter Jennings revealed his personal bias in a big way. The
spectacular rise in NRA membership (to 4.2 million) was
mentioned constantly during the campaign by numerous sources.
This trend seems to be continuing beyond the election season.
After the recent murders in Wakefield, Massachusetts, the first
opinions printed by several newspapers emphasized the fact that
strict gun laws in that state simply disarmed the victims without
hindering the killer.
Although this reduction in the media's anti-gun bias is far from
complete, it is interesting to speculate on the cause. Perhaps
journalists have developed a guilty conscience about their ethical
lapses. Perhaps they have finally realized that a mountain of
evidence shows the futility and counterproductive results of gun
control laws. But a somewhat more cynical explanation may be
the simple desire of all journalists to tell a good story.
Imagine the task of a reporter assigned to research and write a
story on some aspect of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side
there is the usual cast. Start with the limousine liberals like Teddy
Kennedy, Rosie O'Donnell and Diane Feinstein. They repeat the
same tired, hypocritical message urging passage of laws to
outlaw gun ownership for ordinary people while everyone knows
they have guns of their own or are protected by armed
bodyguards.
You also have the anti-gun organizations like Handgun Control
Inc., which represents the views of its ultra-rich benefactors, and
the insipid Million Mom March, which uses their own massive
donations from wealthy foundations in a contrived effort to
generate interest among American soccer moms and support for
Democratic Party candidates. From a reporter's point of view,
these groups are just plain boring.
Now consider the interesting stories and fascinating characters
on the other side of the issue:
In New Jersey, a group of African-American shooting
enthusiasts started the Tenth Cavalry Gun Club. They are so
successful that they are now opening chapters in other areas.
Stories about this group explode the myth that gun enthusiasts
must be white, as do stories about the group of Filipino shooters
called the 1521 Sportsman Association.
In Nevada, Dr. Ignatius Piazza is creating a city in the desert that
will be built around a complex of shooting ranges. Since every
family will be armed to the teeth, it will probably be the safest
and most polite city in America. To promote his enterprise he
offers popular classes to teach anyone, even soccer moms, to
shoot actual Uzi submachine guns.
In Merced, California, there was the dramatic story of the
pitchfork murders. In this sad case, three small children were
murdered in their home by a madman wielding a pitchfork. Their
older sister, who was capable of using the family rifle for self
defense, was unable to reach it because her father believed he
was required by law to keep it locked up.
In almost any part of the country you can find dramatic stories of
women who have aided their recovery from rape or assault by
learning the art of armed self defense. They vow that they will
never be victimized again. Some of them have used their new
skills to survive a second assault. There are powerful, emotional
stories here. Women empowering other women by passing on
firearms skills is becoming a major theme in the gun culture.
Others are rediscovering their heritage as outdoorswomen by
learning to shoot and hunt.
Stories like this are becoming easier to find as authors and
reporters uncover these dramatic events. A good example is a
book by Robert A. Waters: "The Best Defense - Stories of
Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm".
When the media filters out stories like these to satisfy their own
bias, they are missing an opportunity to attract a larger audience.
The era of political correctness is slowly drawing to a
close.Journalists who wish to stand out from their peers are
finding an amazing variety of interesting stories within the
politically incorrect American gun culture. In many cases their
story proposals are spiked by editors and producers who still
feel a political connection to the anti-gun lobby, but a growing
number of positive stories about gun owners are appearing on
the air or in print.
This trend will accelerate as a larger number of media outlets are
forced to compete for the same audience. Control of television
news divisions is passing from old-line liberal journalists to
pragmatic businessmen who know that alienating (or boring) a
large portion of the audience harms the bottom line. The old anti-
gun bias that has been a staple of American media culture for
over 30 years is slowly fading as the nature of the business
changes.
Although things are improving, this is not the time for gun rights
activists to relax. Messages from viewers and readers will have
more impact than ever as news executives search for clues to
audience preferences.
Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and a member of
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, on the web at
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com