Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias...

Welcome to the January 31st edition of the (almost) Weekly Check on the Bias. This is the post where I examine instances of the bias larger outfits in the Main Stream Media exibit (usually) against guns, gun ownership, and the Second Amendment.

I thought I'd define the purpose of this post again because one person emailed me last week and said:

...You rarely mention all of the stories about people using guns to defend themselves...

And there are a lot of them. But a catalog of defensive arms use isn't the purpose of this particular report of mine. I do some of that during the week (and yes, sometimes during this weekly report) and many others do it on a daily basis. This specific report is about bias. And most defensive gun use stories come from small newspapers or TV stations and contain no bias at all -- it's tough to fit bias into a three paragraph story or 30 second broadcast.

But in the interests of favorable stories, I'll start off with a quick one. It's 5:40 AM as I write this and I have the local TV news (WNNE 31) on. They just had a feature about local biathlon contenders training for the next Winter Olympics. They showed them with their rifles, skiing through the snow, showed them getting off some shots at one of the target stops. All a positive portrayal of how there is much more to guns than just crime. But this is a local TV station in Vermont. Guns are an accepted way of life up here and negative stories (as opposed to op-eds, I should add) are a rarity. As I reported during the past Summer, this same station often reports on local gun shows and such.

And maybe that should be the theme of this week's edition: Local vs National reporting on gun issues. You will rarely read ANYTHING positive about firearms in any national newspaper such as the Washington Post, LA Times, et al. Naturally you can add the New York Times to that list, too, but truth in commentary requires that I DID mention a story from them in a Weekly Report last Spring about fishing with guns in Vermont.
All right, enough of that.

The Christian Science Monitor is a newspaper distributed world-wide with over a million upscale readers. They have not been a good friend to gun owners. In today's (1/31) edition they have a story about the recent decision by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to ban all handguns in the city. The report starts off in the very first two sentences with bias:

A bold ballot initiative could make the city a pioneer in gun control. But will it cut crime, or simply infuriate the gun lobby?
In a city so often intent on making brash political statements, Chris Daly's tone is decidedly practical.

Is a decision to rob citizens of their right to bear arms really "bold" and pioneering? Those adjectives imply something new and fresh and good. And City Supervisor Daly is "decidedly practical"! Keep that bolded lead in mind as you read this:

Daly insists that his proposal is simply about making San Francisco safer - being the vanguard of gun control is just a fringe benefit. Yet most experts are not convinced that handgun bans have any significant effect on crime, and some add that the ban's most likely outcome would be to provoke the national gun lobby in the same way that San Francisco's gay marriages riled cultural conservatives.

"Vanguard" being equal to "cutting edge" of course as in again reinforcing the feeling that this ballot initiative is a good thing for forward thinking people. I guess I'm not one of them. But notice how the main thrust of reporting on opposition isn't that gun control doesn't work (as has been shown repeatedly) but rather that such legislation would simply infuriate "the gun lobby".

The reporter/writer of this story, Mark Sappenfield does take the time (after several more paragraphs about cities with gun control) to say this:

The long-term trends, though, have not been positive. Washington and Chicago perennially have some of the highest homicide rates in the US. Last year, when Chicago's homicide count dropped an unprecedented 25 percent, the reason was not the ban so much as a new vigilance in getting guns out of the hands of criminals - using laws already on the books in many states.

"They were not trying to get guns out of law-abiding homeowners' hands," says Arthur Lurigio, chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice at Loyola University in Chicago. "But when they encountered suspects, they were vigorously confiscating guns and trying to figure out where they can find more guns."

Others agree that the greatest success in lowering murder rates has come when law-enforcement officials have made taking guns from criminals a top priority.

"There is no cheap way out of this," says Philip Cook, a public-policy professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. "Criminals have a way of getting guns no matter what the law is."

That's admirable of Sappenfield to include these quotes and far better than many other large circulation newspapers have in reporting on the proposed SF gun ban. But he set the overall tone of the story during the first couple paragraphs which (as I discussed on my segment last week on Cam's Radio Show) most is all most newspaper readers bother to actually read. The story continues with the usual quotes from the NRA and others.

Taken as a whole, the article isn't too bad -- bias wise -- but if you only read the lead (not necessarily written by Sappenfield) and the first part of the story, you would draw the conclusion that this ballot measure initiative is a bold cutting-edge measure to fight crime and all of the following nay-sayers are just gun-nuts. I am one of those.

I do need to mention here that there are several bills moving their way through the State of Washington's legislature that would dramatically curtail the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens including the usual "assault weapons" ban and a ban on .50 caliber guns. Here's a brief synopsis from KATU TV:

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Hundreds of gun control opponents packed a Senate hearing Tuesday in Olympia on several bills that would ban assault weapons, close the gun show loophole, and ban weapons from the Capitol.

In the largest committee meeting since the legislative session began January 10th, about 200 people filled the Senate judiciary hearing room and an overflow room.

Citizen opponents appeared to far outnumber the proponents, who were mostly lawmakers, public officials and anti-gun groups.

Bills that have been filed or drafted on the issue include the banning of assault weapons and .50-caliber guns, regulating the the sale of firearms at guns shows and events and banning guns from the Capitol.

State Senator Darlene Fairley, a Lake Forest Democrat, sponsored SB 5344 regulating firearms at the Capitol. She said those with permits can put their weapons in a lockbox and retrieve them when they leave.

Blogger Heartless Libertarian has been all over this assault on the Second Amendment with non-stop posting including the bills themselves and commentary about them. Just head over there and start reading and scrolling...

I'm not sure how many times you can mention the NRA in a single news story and still be considered unbiased... Anyway, Brian DeBose of the Washington Times had a piece yesterday (which I couldn't find this morning on their site so am relying on a "reprint" via the World Peace Herald which says there are still hurdles to Congress passing a bill to sheild the gun manufactures from frivolous lawsuits but that there is some hope:

"There were a number of obstacles in 2004, not only the political climate and the 'poison pill' amendments, and we worked in good faith with [Senate Minority Leader] Tom Daschle, who didn't work in good faith with us," said Chris Cox, federal director for the National Rifle Association.

Mr. Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat who voted for all three amendments, has been replaced by Sen. John R. Thune, South Dakota Republican and an avid supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Also gone are Democratic Sens. Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina, Bob Graham of Florida, John B. Breaux of Louisiana and John Edwards of North Carolina. All except Mr. Edwards voted for the "poison pills." Mr. Edwards' presidential run prevented him from voting on all but the extension of the assault-weapons ban.

Coming in as replacements are all Republicans: Mr. Isakson, Mr. Thune, Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana and Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, all of whom supported similar legislation when they were in the House.

"I supported it in the House and I would again," Mr. DeMint said. "I think it is ridiculous that a manufacturer would be sued for a crime committed by someone else."

The NRA also is counting as allies freshman Republican Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

It is clear that extending the assault-weapons ban is the backbreaker, Mr. Cox said. But when asked if the NRA and gun-rights advocates could accept any of the other amendments, he said: "Last year, [President Bush] called for a clean bill without amendments that would prevent it from reaching his desk. We don't see a need to water the bill down for unnecessary reasons, and we hope the efforts of the gun-control groups and their allies to kill this legislation with 'poison pill' amendments will fail."

As would be expected from the Washington Times, this story is favorable to most of my readers' (that would be you) position. There! See??? I can report on a good-bias article!

This next story has nothing to do with bias per se but there isn't a whole lot to yak about this week so... I heard about this story -- of an actress in NYC being murdered during a robbery -- over the weekend on NBC's Today Show and wasn't going to comment on it because I do feel sad for the victim but, well, you'll see... From the Star Tribune (MN):

Three older teenagers came from nowhere, demanding money. DuFresne's fiancé, Jeffrey Sparks, said he didn't take the threat seriously and tried to brush by them. That's when he got hit in the face with a handgun.

After making sure he was OK, DuFresne, 28, walked toward the muggers, who were now trying to swipe her friend's purse. In the commotion, an agitated DuFresne shouted, "What are you going to do, shoot us?"

About 10 seconds later, Sparks heard a gunshot. As friends called for help, he held the woman he followed from Seattle to New York City to marry and watched her die in his arms.

As he talked Friday about the aspiring actress and playwright, Sparks had to deal with his grief as a horde of New York reporters followed him through the streets.

Please don't think that what I am about to say comes easily or heartlessly but there are certain facts of life that have to be reckoned with.

First of all, when a group of thugs try to rob you, you had REALLY BETTER take it seriously even if you are with a group of people yourself. Just as most convenience stores teach their employees to just "give them the money", so too Sparks should have done the same, especially as he was not armed and had a gun in his face.

Compounding matters, the murder victim, actress DuFresne should have kept her big mouth shut instead of issuing a challenge to a band of armed mutants. How the hell can you possibly say something as stupid as, "What are you going to do, shoot us?" to a probably drug-infested immature youth holding a gun on you?

The first rule of staying alive is that you don't try to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. I'm sorry she was shot. I'm upset anytime I read about someone being shot by a criminal. But there is such a thing as common sense. None of the news stories reported this but I wouldn't be supprised if DuFresne and her fiance and friends (after a night of "celebration") weren't a little drunk and I'm sure this led to their inopportune actions.

Lastly, DuFresne's fiance was dealing "with his grief" as "hordes of NY reporters followed him" yet found time to sit in the studios of NBC and talk to Lester Holt the next morning!

Something stinks about this whole incident but my real problem is that as with any story of someone being killed with a firearm, it reflects badly for the rest of us who are law-abiding owners.

Okay, end of brief rant. Folks, even if you ARE armed, unless you know you have time to draw your weapon and defend yourself, the moral of this story is to just "give them the money". You stand a much better chance of surviving.

Well, I guess this is a shorter report than most. What the heck, here's some of what is going on elsewhere:

Joe Huffman is -- of course -- the organizer of BoomerShoot coming up at the end of April. While I don't travel, most of you all are normal and do and I encourage you to attend this remarkable event. Anyway... Now he's being asked to provide special effects for a movie! Let's face it folks, CGE or not, there are some things you have to film for real.

Triticale is a gun owner who provides one more reason why he moved from Illinois. He provides the gory details on an anti-gun event.

Geek With a .45 goes knife shopping and he has pictures. I like pictures. I'm kinda' simple that way...

Carnaby Fudge reports on household defense regarding the question of what's better, a dog or a gun? The statistics he provides are rather illuminating. Oh, and the gun wins. So just get the dog for love!

Les Jones has his Weekly Gun Links Up. A valuable service.

Denise at The Ten Ring is rueing the day she didn't buy a Thompson machine gun. We've all been there for one gun or another (and in my case, guitars, too.)

And one more pro-2A blogger you should be checking out, Cowboy Blob. Good stuff.

Okay, I gotta get this posted. Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at January 31, 2005 08:33 AM