In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Accuracy in Media: Bullets of Bias
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Bullets of Bias
By Leah G. Rothschild
July 30, 2002
It's not a secret that an anti-gun agenda is prevalent in the mainstream media. During the past few weeks, blatant opinions have appeared in so-called news stories about arming commercial airline pilots. And most recently, the mainstream media highlighted their gun control bias in their coverage of two separate stories.
The Washington Post promoted their anti-gun agenda July 18 in a slanted article about the "Children, Youth and Gun Violence" report. Published in The Future of Children, a journal of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the report advocates reducing youths' access to guns, and calls for changes in gun storage practices in private homes. It also seeks to engage law enforcement and community leaders in anti-gun violence efforts.
The Post did not report the entire story. The reporter quantified the David and Lucile Packard Foundation as an organization "which aims to translate research into public policy." But the reporter neglected to mention that this foundation has a track record with a strong bent toward gun control. For example, "they're on record as sponsoring stringent gun control groups such as the Million Mom March to the tune of $3.5 million," said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. By not divulging the Packard Foundation's leanings about gun issues, the reporter did a disservice to readers.
While one section of the report includes commentary that suggests public school anti-gun programs are not effective deterrents for youth gun violence, a press release put out by the Packard Foundation states, "'Gun avoidance' programs for children, while prevalent, remain largely unevaluated, and those that have been evaluated have not demonstrated success. Children who have undergone avoidance training have been shown in experimental settings to find and play with guns at the same rates as children who have not received the training." Therefore, it's interesting that the headline for The Post article reads, "Youth Gun Programs Not Effective." Not only is this headline contradicted in the press release, it is odd that a newspaper would take a stance on a subjective point that has yet to be proved. And while The Post reporter chose to quote Marjorie Hardy, one of the report's authors, as saying "these programs appeared to actually increase the allure of guns to children," no other quotes or information were presented in the article to verify or balance her comments.
One of the only statistics cited in The Post article states that "gun shots are the second-leading cause of death for children between the ages of 10 and 19, after car accidents." According to the report, the majority of firearm deaths among children and adolescents are homicides among children under age twelve and teens ages 17 to 19. The report states, "the older children are, the more likely they are to risk death by firearm." But The Post neglected to present this background information, thus leading the reader to believe that there is little to no difference between the 17 to 19-year olds and then 10 to 14-year olds. And the newspaper neglected to even mention that according to the report, firearm homicide rates for youth ages 10 to 14 and 15 to 19 fell nearly 50 percent from 1993 to 1998. One section of the report suggests that the decline in firearm deaths is due to increased enforcement of firearm laws, public education efforts, and community-based violence prevention efforts. But The Post failed to include this information in the article because it would have altered their slant.
In an unrelated report on ABC's World News Tonight, the July 25 lead story took a backhanded swing against Second Amendment rights. Their lead, exclusive story was not about Mossauoi or the Middle East. Instead, investigative reporter Brian Ross reported on Ground Zero USA, a weapons training camp in Marion, Alabama. The camp is currently under investigation by Scotland Yard for possible links to Muslim extremists. In his introduction of Ross' report, news anchor Charles Gibson speculated that training camp patrons use facilities such as the one in Alabama to take advantage of America's gun laws and to prepare for Holy War. The news report included footage of the camp facility that included targets such as a police car and a large yellow school bus. At the end of the report, Ross said that an Islamic Cleric in London stated, "America's laws make such paramilitary training a picnic."
But viewers have to ask themselves: is this news report really about America's gun laws or about the possibility that we have terrorist training camps on domestic soil? And what about the frame of reference from which the story was reported? Gibson's comments sent the message that the freedoms protected by the Second Amendment are detrimental to Americans because they allow for the existence of such training camps. But according to former CBS and CNN news correspondent Reid Collins, "there has never been a scintilla of evidence that the ease with which guns can be obtained by law-abiding citizens has ever led to any terrorist-connected activities."
As we all know, the mainstream media's evening news coverage is comprised of short news segments filled with plenty of soundbites and powerful footage. But what happens when the media consumer is unaware of background information that sheds light on agendas and biases in news coverage? In regard to this recent ABC news story, for example, the viewer might have been interested to know that Britain has stringent gun laws. According to Collins, Britain recently confiscated virtually all guns from civilian hands, yet now has an estimated 40 percent increase in violence. Ross' investigative report was based on Britain's frame of reference for gun control, and no other viewpoints were shared.
Gun-related issues are a hot topic with primaries and the November elections on the horizon. While it is appropriate for the mainstream media to indicate their views in opinion and editorial pieces, it is inappropriate for such views to appear in places the media consumer looks to for news. To tell only part of a story is insulting to media consumers who can draw their own conclusions when presented with all the facts and viewpoints.
For questions or comments, please contact Intern@AIM.org.
http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2002/jul30a.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Leah G. Rothschild
July 30, 2002
It's not a secret that an anti-gun agenda is prevalent in the mainstream media. During the past few weeks, blatant opinions have appeared in so-called news stories about arming commercial airline pilots. And most recently, the mainstream media highlighted their gun control bias in their coverage of two separate stories.
The Washington Post promoted their anti-gun agenda July 18 in a slanted article about the "Children, Youth and Gun Violence" report. Published in The Future of Children, a journal of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the report advocates reducing youths' access to guns, and calls for changes in gun storage practices in private homes. It also seeks to engage law enforcement and community leaders in anti-gun violence efforts.
The Post did not report the entire story. The reporter quantified the David and Lucile Packard Foundation as an organization "which aims to translate research into public policy." But the reporter neglected to mention that this foundation has a track record with a strong bent toward gun control. For example, "they're on record as sponsoring stringent gun control groups such as the Million Mom March to the tune of $3.5 million," said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. By not divulging the Packard Foundation's leanings about gun issues, the reporter did a disservice to readers.
While one section of the report includes commentary that suggests public school anti-gun programs are not effective deterrents for youth gun violence, a press release put out by the Packard Foundation states, "'Gun avoidance' programs for children, while prevalent, remain largely unevaluated, and those that have been evaluated have not demonstrated success. Children who have undergone avoidance training have been shown in experimental settings to find and play with guns at the same rates as children who have not received the training." Therefore, it's interesting that the headline for The Post article reads, "Youth Gun Programs Not Effective." Not only is this headline contradicted in the press release, it is odd that a newspaper would take a stance on a subjective point that has yet to be proved. And while The Post reporter chose to quote Marjorie Hardy, one of the report's authors, as saying "these programs appeared to actually increase the allure of guns to children," no other quotes or information were presented in the article to verify or balance her comments.
One of the only statistics cited in The Post article states that "gun shots are the second-leading cause of death for children between the ages of 10 and 19, after car accidents." According to the report, the majority of firearm deaths among children and adolescents are homicides among children under age twelve and teens ages 17 to 19. The report states, "the older children are, the more likely they are to risk death by firearm." But The Post neglected to present this background information, thus leading the reader to believe that there is little to no difference between the 17 to 19-year olds and then 10 to 14-year olds. And the newspaper neglected to even mention that according to the report, firearm homicide rates for youth ages 10 to 14 and 15 to 19 fell nearly 50 percent from 1993 to 1998. One section of the report suggests that the decline in firearm deaths is due to increased enforcement of firearm laws, public education efforts, and community-based violence prevention efforts. But The Post failed to include this information in the article because it would have altered their slant.
In an unrelated report on ABC's World News Tonight, the July 25 lead story took a backhanded swing against Second Amendment rights. Their lead, exclusive story was not about Mossauoi or the Middle East. Instead, investigative reporter Brian Ross reported on Ground Zero USA, a weapons training camp in Marion, Alabama. The camp is currently under investigation by Scotland Yard for possible links to Muslim extremists. In his introduction of Ross' report, news anchor Charles Gibson speculated that training camp patrons use facilities such as the one in Alabama to take advantage of America's gun laws and to prepare for Holy War. The news report included footage of the camp facility that included targets such as a police car and a large yellow school bus. At the end of the report, Ross said that an Islamic Cleric in London stated, "America's laws make such paramilitary training a picnic."
But viewers have to ask themselves: is this news report really about America's gun laws or about the possibility that we have terrorist training camps on domestic soil? And what about the frame of reference from which the story was reported? Gibson's comments sent the message that the freedoms protected by the Second Amendment are detrimental to Americans because they allow for the existence of such training camps. But according to former CBS and CNN news correspondent Reid Collins, "there has never been a scintilla of evidence that the ease with which guns can be obtained by law-abiding citizens has ever led to any terrorist-connected activities."
As we all know, the mainstream media's evening news coverage is comprised of short news segments filled with plenty of soundbites and powerful footage. But what happens when the media consumer is unaware of background information that sheds light on agendas and biases in news coverage? In regard to this recent ABC news story, for example, the viewer might have been interested to know that Britain has stringent gun laws. According to Collins, Britain recently confiscated virtually all guns from civilian hands, yet now has an estimated 40 percent increase in violence. Ross' investigative report was based on Britain's frame of reference for gun control, and no other viewpoints were shared.
Gun-related issues are a hot topic with primaries and the November elections on the horizon. While it is appropriate for the mainstream media to indicate their views in opinion and editorial pieces, it is inappropriate for such views to appear in places the media consumer looks to for news. To tell only part of a story is insulting to media consumers who can draw their own conclusions when presented with all the facts and viewpoints.
For questions or comments, please contact Intern@AIM.org.
http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2002/jul30a.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878