Media Bias

[SiG Lady]

In the halcyon days of REAL radio news, a popular (and responsible) news reporter customarily ended every cast with, "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own."

I still think about that... and pass it along to the right minds.

[EricW]

OK, I'll finish PO'ing forum members on this note.  

I know of at least one fine person in the broadcasting business.  He is most certainly pro-gun and an intelligent, thoughtful individual.  Unfortunately, the exception is not the rule.

Success in getting fair reporting on a local level is great news.  Congratulations on your efforts.  But...ask your news friends what they think their odds are of getting a job in a *major* market or a national program given the fact they are publicly pro-gun and could describe themselves as a political conservative.  I'll bet the answer rhymes with "hero."  At the same time, anyone who's simply smart in the news business will have a tough time moving up.  Intelligent people are more difficult to manipulate...not a desirable trait in modern corporate structure.  

Finally, as far as what's wrong with the media, consider this:  the role of "The News" is not dissemination of pertinent information; it's primary role is *entertainment*.  This is a major shift from the Walter Cronkite era.  The news is now expected to be a primary revenue stream, not the public service it was in the past.  This simple fact really precludes taking anything you see in the media terribly seriously considering the true objective.  

I'll save the rest of my inflammatory commentary for my next Hate rant:  The Drivelization of America.

E

[tightloop]

Eric

I guess that is what I miss most, just presenting the news without it having to be entertainment; just like they did in the Cronkite era.  Without embelishment or adding the personal bias or thoughts of the reporter or the station.

[Ron Ankeny]

EricW:

I can hardly wait fast enough. "The Drivelization of America" sounds like a good one.

[Jake Di Vita]

When it comes to the higher echelons of politics and the military, you can be absolutely sure that no one that is not already bought and paid for attains these levels of power. The same goes with the President. Sure, it seems as if he is more freedom conscious and preserving than Gore or Clinton. During my senior year, in my American Gov. class, I was asked the question by the teacher as to who I'd vote for and why. My simple response was neither. Between Bush and Gore, Bush may in fact be the lesser of the two evils. But the lesser of two evils is still evil.

As with any public shooting, such as Columbine, or what is happening right now with the sniper. All it succumbs to is Action, Reaction, Solution. If you want to say, create a new legislation for gun control. You don't wait until some maniac goes off and kills 20 people just because. You create the problem (Action), the people that are already wavering turn to your side (Reaction) and say "this needs to be stopped, people are being killed in the streets all because of firearms." The next bill you desire to pass is voted in by those very people that were turned to your side by recent events. (Solution).

I'm sure this is going to start some type of flame war, and for the record, this is just my opinion.

My 2 cents.

[SiG Lady]

Part of what I did during my lengthy broadcast industry stint was, indeed, report the news (among other things). There were many times I suggested to the management that I present interesting and solid community development news or even public affairs (for lack of better term) news series projects but was flatly denied the opportunity. Jeez... and we couldn't really do "investigative" work either, owing to the threat of instant lawsuits and terminally ruffled feathers. So it was either city council meetings (which at times were pretty interesting!!) or the lead-with-the-bleed gory ambulance-chasing stuff... or really meaningless "safe" stories. It was nearly hopeless to try and present free speech informative material. It just wasn't happenin'.

The one good thing about being "the newsperson" at any given station, however, was my access to certain bits of advance/confidential info from local agencies that I had to 'sit' on until given the OK by the agency in question. Sometimes that was personally gratifying but I was still obliged to abide by the honor of the agency's request and remain in media paralysis until given the signal.

It was all quite frustrating, really.

[George D]

You guys think you've got it tough?

In Australia we had a lunatic kill 35 people with 2 auto-loading rifles. The media jumped all over it with a multitude of interviews with foaming-at-the-mouth anti-gun groups, the result of which was new set of draconian gun laws and gun confiscations. The media never looked at why the police took 2 hours to arrive at the scene or why they had ignored reports of threats by this maniac, or the fact that he had murdered legitimate licenced gun owners to obtain the rifles.

Even crazier is that after the new gun laws were introduced the crime rate involving firearms has risen. But anytime there is any incident involving a gun the media trots out the same anti-gun crowd to call for more gun bans and stifles all requests for reply by the shooting fraternity. The current barrow being pushed is that to stop the incidence of crimes involving ILLEGAL handguns, all handguns should be banned.

Just a point involving Hollywood; for people who are so anti-gun they certainly don't mind portraying gun-violence themselves. How many movies have you seen with groups of "baddies" blazing away with fully automatic weapons without a hit while the "hero" fires 1 shot from a pistol and three baddies fall down.

[Jake Di Vita]

George D,

That is an absolutely classic example of Action, Reaction, and Solution.

[John Dunn]

One of the worst mass murders I can recall was the intentional torching of an after-hours night club.  I couldn't find the story in a quick web search, but I think it happened in New York and 80+ people died.  (If someone knows the exact details please correct me)Bottom line is that nobody in the media cried out to regulate/ban gasoline and Zippos.

[EricW]

The horse is long since dead, but let's beat it anyway....

Want to talk about nitwits writing news?  Check this little quote out:

---

"The statement, faxed to Qatar's Jazeera television and carried by Jazeera and at least one Islamist Web site (www.islammemo.com), could be the first conclusive proof that the Saudi-born militant had survived last year's U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (news - web sites). "

---

From:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ait_binladen_dc

You just have to wonder what these people smoked for breakfast.  An anonymous fax is now "evidence."

The article ends up on this note:

---

"The last bin Laden video emerged in April, undated, and was a warning to the United States it would not feel safe until Palestinians enjoyed peace. "

---

So, if the guy running the video camera set the clock to an incorrect or false date, or simply dubbed a date in with video processing equipment, a video cassette would be incontrovertible proof of Bin Laden's continued existence.  Sadly enough, crap like this is typical of modern media "logic."

I rest my case.

E

[tightloop]

It is sad that, with the exception of certain individuals, people as a whole no longer say what they mean, nor mean what they say.

I am sure it is very naive of me, but I am old enough to remember when you could take what folks told you on face value to be the truth.  I wonder how we could return to that premise?

[MBneACP]

Interesting thread...

I just finished the Washington D.C. NSSF Media Seminar, my 8th or 9th this year, and the last one until January. Was a major success (finally cracked NPR...we've got some input now...not much, but, hey, more than we had last week!). Am pretty burned out; got drawn into strategy/planning/handling on the sniper stuff, too. We succeeded in turning back or blunting all the antigun initiatives, but I think it's taken a toll on all of us. I can't seem to focus on what needs to get done around here. Still, I can't shut up, either...

Media bias fascinates me. I believe it's unconscious, existing in a really interesting blind spot in the media's own eyes. The best explanation I can give, after three years of being on the front lines, comes from Malcolm Gladwell's TIPPING POINT theories...we are far more keyed to cues within our environment than we ever believed. Monkey see; monkey honest to god do. Journalists' environment is a pressure-cooker filled with very similar people in terms of background, education, interests, etc. "Guns" per se never even have to be mentioned...the cues are there and are enormoulsy powerful.

I had lunch with the novelist Steve Hunter Tuesday, and we were talking about how he was the only "gun guy" at the Washington POST (he's the movie critic). Even he had a period when he was sorta antigun, but he had your basic epiphany, decided to "come out" and take the hit. It's hard. I basically killed my career as a freelancer with the top magazines by dong the gun stuff I do.

In the Media Seminars, what we try and do is present a different set of cues. Not that we override the bias, but we do provide a "reasonable doubt" that makes it harder to "tune out" pro-gun info. I suspect the cues are more important than the informational aspects of the Seminars.

As a person who teaches interviewing techniques, I think the most powerful tool out there is the "like me/not like me" dicotomy. We tend to not only divulge information to people who are "like us," but we are more willing to listen to the "like us" opinions. It's why the NRA--the most amazingly powerful political group in the country--is unable to make even the tinest inroads in a  "hearts and minds" campaign.

Or, maybe I'll go get lunch!

[tightloop]

Your comments are very interesting.  I know you have taken your hits due to your tolerance of pro gun people.  I am not trying to pick on the journalists as a group of similarly minded people, which they are, but started this thread mearly to voice my frustration and dissapointment that a group of highly educated, supposedly informed, group of people could harbor such a bias and not at least make an effort to conceal it while on the air and at least make an attempt, no mater how feeble to just present the news facts without their personal feelings being so blatant.  (How's that for a run on sentence?)

You get my point.  Not only do they not attempt to try to hide their conceit for the sport shooter/hunter side of the gun issue, they seemingly do all within their power to slant every issue with a gun factor into the "BAD" side of the argument.  It is obvious that they do not even do the remotest amount of research  to determine if they have all the facts correct, but simply go " ON AIR" with their personal tiatribe with no thought at all to the enormous effect their words and actions have on the mostly urban dwelling, uninformed TV watching public.

They would have to sing out of the other side of their mouth if the IPSC champ happened to be a black woman with a physical dissability, and a Jewish surname, for fear of the lawsuit.  But since the majority of our group are just regular folks who abide by the law, pay out taxes on time, work hard to raise our kids correctly, and just happen to love hunting and the shooting sports, our side of all gun issues never gets heard over the airways.  It is almost always someone like me who voices their frustrations and worries on a forum like this one, where everyone knows that whomever posts here is really just "preaching to the choir".

Thanks for chimming in and doing what you can.