USA Today Article Reveals Mainstream Media Anti-Gun Bias

screen-shot-2016-09-23-at-9-15-22-am

As I pointed out in a recent post (Question of the Day: How Stupid Are Americans on Gun Rights?), the average citizen is somewhere between a no- and low-information voter. Despite the proliferation of “alternative” news sources — I include Fox, CNN and MSNBC in that group — Americans still depend on the big media guns for their gun news.

Assuming, that is, that they’re exposed to any news. We’re living in a time where at least two generations of “young people” don’t consume current events at all. They’re almost completely absorbed by “news” about the Kardashians’ kvetching, the Brangelina breakup and other celebrity info. If that. They’re most concerned by what’s going on in their social media.

Chef don’t judge. The rise of social media is a force for good. It’s laying waste to the geographical limitations that defined humanity’s interactions for thousands of years. At the same time, the dying-but-far-from-dead mainstream media continues to doggedly defend the status quo: economically, socially and politically. Especially when it comes to gun rights.

Case in point: usatoday.com’s story 3% of Americans own half the country’s 265 million guns.

As TTAG and other alt media sources reported, the “study” upon which this “news” is based is deeply flawed. Our man Leghorn destroyed the credibility of this “landmark study on gun ownership” which is, in truth, anti-gun agitprop created, funded, parsed and promoted by well-known gun control advocates.

And yet USA Today ran an entire article parroting the purported results without a single dissenting voice, or a warning about the study’s authenticity. This is as close as they got to highlighting the study’s glaring flaws:

The survey, the most authoritative since a 1994 study posed similar questions to gun owners, is under peer-review for publication in a trade journal . . .

The study was based on an online survey of nearly 4,000 Americans conducted in 2015 by market research company GfK, with a nationally representative panel of opt-in participants who are paid to complete surveys, she said.

There are only two possible explanations for this reprehensible reportage. Either journalist Rick Jervis (above) was too lazy or ideologically blind to examine the study’s methodology (or lack thereof), or Jervis did his homework and chose to ignore the study’s blatant bias.

Either way, this is not journalism. It’s propaganda: a regurgitated press release perpetrated on the public without the slightest concern for the truth about guns.

The fact that USA Today published this piece proves that the mainstream media opposes Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. It’s too bad no one’s really listening to what the mainstream media are saying about guns. Then again, maybe not . . .

comments

  1. avatar Sad88 says:

    There are low and no information voters all over. Saw a clip the other day with a trump supporter saying 9/11 would not have happened if obama had not been in the white house.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      I saw a goat humping a stump once…

      1. avatar horacemann says:

        You the goat or the stump?

        1. avatar AR says:

          a good goat will do that….

    2. avatar BrooklynInDaHouse says:

      9/11/12

    3. avatar Dwight says:

      Which 9/11? The one in 2012 where Americans were slaughtered in Benghazi? Which Obama and Hillary blamed on a video! Or the 2001 which Trump knows that Obama was not in office. You may want to research before you post stupid stuff.

      1. avatar Henry says:

        Read it again. Trump didn’t say this, a Trump supporter said it.

    4. avatar mark s. says:

      Has anyone crunched the numbers on this to show how ludicrous this would actually be , I mean I do own a lot of guns but I’m sure that using their formula of 3 % of Americans owning 265 million guns would put my ownership in the thousands .

      1. avatar Slayer of Sacred Cows says:

        3% of 300,000,000 is 9,000,000. 265,000,000 guns divided among 9 million owners is about 30 guns per owner.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    We are a nation of sheep. Dumb sheep…

    1. avatar pieslapper says:

      Can’t we postpone the elections until we’re, you know, done with the Brangelina split?

  3. avatar Pwrserge says:

    So… Tell me again how a “free” press is a good thing.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      That press is bought sold and paid for.

      1. avatar kenneth says:

        Bought by one of the fur multinationals that own 97plus % of the US media. Print, radio, or video, its all Westinghouse, GE, GM, and disney.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      How it’s a good thing?

      They openly tell you what the opposition is planning. No need to get all CIA about things when all you need to do to know what the Lefties are up to is crack open a newspaper or read their website.

      Just look at how HRC told the AARP Bulletin that we need gun control to fight terrorism.

    3. avatar Pg2 says:

      It’s only “free” for those who own it.

  4. avatar Cliff H says:

    An honest MSM news source is one that stays bought – or something like that.

  5. avatar Jeffro says:

    In other news, Water is wet.

  6. avatar strych9 says:

    Honestly I don’t think a lot of this is intentional, it’s a combination of, IMHO, three things.

    The first is groupthink. Journalists all attended the same schools are were taught how to think by those schools so there isn’t much in the way of diversity of opinion/thought process in a newsroom.

    The second problem is “informational incest” and it’s at least tangentially related to the first problem. The old “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” model works great right up until it prevents you from accepting and processing new information. This is a huge problem for the news media. You’ve got a lot of people who’ve been around awhile and built a resume. They have a way of thinking that is accepted but that way of thinking is rigid. This prevents new information, which contradicts that way of thinking, from making headway. Nothing new is ever learned it’s all just a rewrite of the same old storyline.

    The third problem, related to both of the previous problems, is confirmation bias. We all have this problem. Our brain subconsciously looks for things that support a notion we have while rejecting information that doesn’t support or undermines that notion. It takes recognition of this bias and actual work to overcome it.

    Honestly, this is why I read TTAG because the writers and editors here do two things that I think make the site a valuable resource. First, they run stories that may not show guns in the best light (the mall shooting story today for example) and the interact with readership not just in comment section but by inviting people to write reviews and articles for publication. While that may not seem big, it is. While most of us are solidly pro-gun we have our differences of opinion which are readily apparent in the arguments that take place in the comment section. Keeping that sort of information sloshing around keeps us constantly thinking and reevaluating in a way the MSM never does. This makes sure that TTAG doesn’t become stale and go down the pipes the same way the MSM has.

    1. avatar MouseGun says:

      My thoughts exactly, ‘cept with better words and proper grammar.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      I don’t think the phenomenon is entirely incompetence over malice.

      I recall reading that journalists who supported communism got to visit the Soviet union in the 30s. They saw evidence of the near genocide happening there (not the Nazi holocaust), people being starved to death by gov policies and they choose to deliberately not mention it. They could have easily written about it upon returning without fear but choose not to.

      One story says they even saw a vending machine there and raved about how only communism could produce something so wonderful…Until seeing the manufacturer’s plaque on it by a company in Boston. But still held their beliefs.

      Sure, most reporters and taking heads are as you describe, I don’t disagree with that. But there has to be some deliberate malice involved at some level. If there are useful idiots, someone is using them.

  7. avatar Danilushka Ozera says:

    “Chef don’t judge. The rise of social media is a force for good. It’s laying waste to the geographical limitations that defined humanity’s interactions for thousands of years.”
    No, bought and paid-for big media are giving way to brought and Paid-for social media which is taking the degradation of journalism-based in-deth news with Infotainment one step further in making the shallow and SJW censored-to-the-left brief tweet, Facebook post, and video-bite on YouTube the most in-depth media news reporting gets. Low-info FEELS voters are the norm now: if it bleeds, it leads and if it shocks, it rocks.
    Celebrate naively if you want, I’ll sit that party out.
    This is a very negative tend for liberty and the Bill of Rights.

  8. avatar Bill says:

    “Assuming, that is, that they’re exposed to any news. We’re living in a time where at least two generations of “young people” don’t consume current events at all. They’re almost completely absorbed by “news” about the Kardashians’ kvetching, the Brangelina breakup and other celebrity info. If that. They’re most concerned by what’s going on in their social media.”

    What a statement! With millennials constantly on their phone, sharing sites like Facebook and tumblr, and aggregation sites like reddit, upworthy etc, your average millennial is probably better informed by more varied sources than any generation in the past.

    Speed of news consumption allows for people to be interested about trivial matters AND serious matters. But no, continue painting a stereotypical view of two generations of people, as if the crotchety old people when you were young didn’t say the same about your generation.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      True, the POTENTIAL is there for my generation (I’m 21) to be extremely well informed. But the tragedy is that only a fraction of us actually use that access to its full potential. And there are enough meaningless distractions on the web that the author’s statement is absolutely correct. It’s not true across the board, of course (there’s at least one millennial who isn’t like that, and he’s currently typing this reply), but as generalizations go, it’s pretty damn accurate.

  9. avatar 16V says:

    “The rise of social media is a force for good. It’s laying waste to the geographical limitations that defined humanity’s interactions for thousands of years. “

    That it’s a force is not debatable. That it’s a force for good is highly debatable. It is, at most generous, a very sharp double-edged sword, one which the pullers of strings are coming to grips with how to control.

    If you think the current media platforms of radio and tv are corrupted tools, just wait till you see what happens over the next decade with social media. Much more subtle forms of social control, reinforced with herd mentality. Chatbots will create false narratives, interact with people who have no idea it’s a government or company steering their thoughts and feelings. Mildred Montag interacting with the wall screen is but a whiff of the potential.

    I’m part of the last generation not utterly reliant on FB and Twitter for their employment, personal and professional reputation, and their social status. Is something that has absolutely nothing to do with your job, and no one would ever learn of without FB, used against people, ruining their lives? Routinely. Do you think maybe this will ever be used for evil by the police or other government agents?

    Dial-up BBS’s, FidoNet, SixDegrees, but halfway through MySpace I could see where social media was heading, Twitter before the reboot was when I checked out.

    The future is even bleaker than Ridley Scott’s 1984 Apple ad. There are virtual guards in all the tubes, and Anya Major in a Hooter’s outfit isn’t going to get close to launching that hammer.

    Some will fight, more will just accept, but most will go enthusiastically.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      This is already a considerable problem. Facebook and Google have been caught red-handed changing search outcomes and regulating what can and cannot “trend”.

      When things that don’t fit the narrative come up they *cough* magically *cough* don’t trend and are suddenly removed from search results.

      Some people woke up when the whole Milo Yianniopolis vs. Twitter thing erupted but that’s just the folks that were paying attention and actually care about how Twitter was trying to curb free speech and alter things to fit their agenda. The vast majority of people don’t know who Milo is and never heard of this little scandal.

      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        Just finished Milos’ funeral of Twitter. A good read considering a foreign fabulous fag understands freedom and liberty better than most Americans.

        http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/09/23/full-transcript-milos-twitter-eulogy/

        The market will determine the future narrative of social media, and while to old crew laments, perhaps regulating and restricting freedoms will ensure replacements finally understand what is at stake.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I saw/listened to most of the video for this yesterday. Milo cracks me up. Not only does he usually make pretty good points but he really roils up the Lefties with his trolling. The ensuing hilarity is just priceless.

          Without him we wouldn’t have Trigglypuff and I would be a better person because I wouldn’t have laughed at a morbidly obese child-woman totally losing her shit because someone said something she doesn’t like. That… thing’s hatred and stupidity were so thick and rich you could drizzle them on pancakes.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          The issue is that not only can Google and FB determine what you see, that influences how you think about the data.

          The subtle censorship and filtering is going on among all those with a “progressive” agenda, and frankly, that’s all of them. How long before YT de-monitizing ‘controversial’ videos drives all of the deplorables away? More importantly, where do they go, and how do they gain exposure?

          The real fun begins with the algos that filter info. Not the baby steps of reordering the results of “Hillary Clinton’s Health…” search, full-throttle Goebbels control of all of it. That tweet from your friend who is taking a CCW class and really wants you to buy a gun and join him will be followed by another tweet. From someone who doesn’t tell the truth about guns. Or has some horribly sad story to tell.

          Final thought is that it takes very few people to actually make it all happen. Once you have indoctrinated the top people at google, yahoo, FB, whatever, they’ll do it for the bad guys, without the bad guys even having to ask. They’re already doing it, anyone think for a second it they will decide to quit?

          Television, radio, and even print are already self-censoring, and that took less than 20 years.

    2. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

      Social media is a reflection of the growing immaturity of western population. It is the place were adults continue to engage in playground trash talk and gossip. Social media keeps its inhabitants locked in adolescence. This phenomenon is spread across the political spectrum. It goes well beyond politics.

      The comment section of any blog is social media. Just look at the responses to yesterdays question of the day. Most of the answers sounded like some 14 year old paying Call of Duty.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Most of the answers sounded like some 14 year old paying Call of Duty.”

        I read most of that as humor or attempted humor.

        1. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

          You are being charitable. 32 pounder and Churchill crocodile is humor. Talking about the various weapons that you don’t carry on a daily basis isn’t.

  10. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

    There is something called the 20/80 rule. First observed in air combat, it says that 20% of pilots account for 80% of the kills. You can look at sports or just plain work and find out that stat holds. It is likely that some minority percentage of gun owners own half the guns. Whether that is 3% or 25% is irrelevant. If you own one gun or 100 guns you are pro gun.

  11. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Ridiculous numbers. If I was a victim of a phone poll. Regardless of the subject. I doubt Id be truthful. If it would get the result I wanted. Id say what I wanted the pollster to hear.
    If asked about guns owned. Id say I have none. As its no ones business but mine what and how many I do have.
    But I guess I am a true 3%er in more ways then I had previously thought of.

  12. avatar Defiant Deity says:

    I read this article yesterday or the day before and it was published by another left wing hack who has a lot more animosity towards gun owners. Read for yourself on the names he calls us and how he believes we should not have a voice since he thinks we are such a small minority of people. I confronted him on Twitter about his article being a joke and based off a survey. I think asked him why are there a record number of first time buyers going through the background check system? This fact goes against his entire article. Of course he never responded to me. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/study-3-owns-50-guns-held-hostage-article-1.2798077?utm_content=buffer73386&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=gkuntzman+buffer

  13. avatar doesky2 says:

    Even though we know the numbers are BS….

    The fascist Left headlines it as…

    3% of Americans own half the country’s 265 million guns

    whereas people who respect the BOR’s would headline it.

    10+ Million law-abiding adults have a reasonably nice collection of firearms.

    We are on a collision coarse due to the fact that the Left has grown the government to the point that everything is political because the government now declares winners and losers. The only way out of this death spiral is to reduce the size and power of government.

    I’m a member of the stupid party that can’t enumerate this simple idea.

    1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      By my crappy math 265,000,000 / (320,000,000 X .03) = roughly 27 firearms per owner.

      I better get moving. I’m no where near that number yet.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        Racking up 27 guns is fairly quick. I went from about 7 in 2007 to [COMMENT DELETED] now. I’ve also had my own gun since I was 12.

  14. avatar My Life Matters says:

    “The rise of social media is a force for good.” I beg to differ. Social media CAN be a great platform for information sharing and comparing ideologies but the overwhelming majority of users are stupid and use it for spreading lies, hate, and rhetoric. Social media will be the downfall of this country and is possibly the worst invention this century. You have a handheld device that allows you to connect with all of the information ever created by mankind and the average intelligence of the population seems to be half of what it was 50 years ago. I’m realizing this and I’m in my 30’s.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Well said. I’m only 21, and frankly, I’m terrified for the future of our society. To be honest, the insidious cultural changes that are the result of social media scare me a lot more than the prospect of direct government tyranny. Patriots and tyrants have been fighting and killing each other for as long as human civilization has been around; there’s nothing new about that cycle. Governments rise, they eventually become corrupt and evil, the people rise up to fight them, they install a new, better government, and the cycle repeats. While it’s not fun for anybody, there’s at least an established, predictable pattern there.

      But social media and its effects on society are an entirely new phenomenon, and one that didn’t even exist when I was born (again, that was barely more than 2 decades ago). It’s impossible to say with any kind of certainty what its long-term effects will be, but what I see now worries me a great deal.

  15. avatar Porter says:

    Nearly all so called … ” news content ” ….. is written and aired by just 6 corporations . This is why we keep hearing the same BS lies over and over , ( It’s NO mistake , gun people have corrected them enough , it’s intentional ).
    — ‘ Bad gun thing – high power with shoulder thing that goes up …OMG – can shoot down planes .” – Brian Williams said so !!
    http://themetapicture.com/media/cool-newspapers-TV-stations-corporations-Disney-Warner.jpg

  16. Is the media gaslighting?

  17. avatar DavidinNC says:

    My take on this recent study is that more people are simply lying about being gun owners.

    I for one have no guns.

  18. avatar Pg2 says:

    Every mainstream “news” source is a propaganda vehicle, it has been this way for a long time. Even the much of the “alternative” news sources are biased in the best case, or flat out controlled opposition in the worst case. Fake left vs fake right….dog and pony show to placate the herd and provide some illusion of choice and participation.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email