The AP used to be a reliable ‘disarmenter‘ media outlet. John Lott documented how an Associated Press editor managed to tell a story about shooter at the Appalachian Law School without mentioning the armed students who helped to subdue him. But this has begun to change as the pro-gun culture media has been able to document and challenge the AP’s stories and procedures. It seems the AP has been feeling the heat. So it was with interest that I read this AP story, just before next week’s election. It starts with typical disarmenter passive construction . . .
The latest U.S. school shooting claimed the lives of two students and the teenage shooter less than two weeks before congressional and statewide elections. It barely made a ripple in the final days of campaigning.
Notice that the second sentence acknowledges that the school shooting is having almost no effect on the campaigns. The article goes on to lament the general inattention to gun control, and actually provides a measure of balance. The AP includes the fact that opinions are divided on the issue, that there are in fact two sides, and that candidates may pay a price on election day if they push for more civilian disarmament.
This is a significant change. Allowing that Second Amendment supporters have legitimate arguments is a death knell for disarmenters. They rely on emotion to press their gun grabbing cause because they lack rational arguments to support their stance.
That’s not to say that the AP has suddenly become an organization that respects the Constitution and limited government. It has been forced to back away from its transparently one-sided position. However, when presenting anything less than their mono-poled view of the “gun violence” problem, disarmenters lose.
Notice how the passive voice is dropped, later in the article:
Gifford’s (sic) latest appearance was in Seattle, just two days before a 15-year-old high school student shot and killed two people and himself in an attack north of the city.
The AP probably feels that it’s safe to use Giffords as an expert on the subject as an attack on Gabby would be seen as an attack on a gun violence victim, someone who has already lost a great deal. That might be true if Second Amendment activists were to go after her. But they have no need to do so when they can simply point out how she is being used by the disarmenters to further their unpopular cause. It’s not an attractive position for the disarmenters to be in.
Still, the AP can’t finish an article without attempting to smear the NRA as an evil big money machine, ignoring the millions spent by “progressive” billionaires such Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates. But they give a quote to the NRA, who talks about their millions of members.
Some might cynically say that the article is an attempt to suppress second amendment support just before the election. Perhaps, but it can also be seen that the AP has been forced to move away from its historically ardent disarmenter stance. That is a good sign.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.