Here’s something the mainstream media won’t tell you about the mainstream media: its anti-gun bias isn’t just ideological. It’s structural. And it was built by Silicon Valley’s ad machine, not by a shadowy cabal of editorial writers sitting around plotting your disarmament.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
In 2000, newspapers accounted for roughly 53 percent of U.S. ad spending. By 2020, that number had collapsed to about 5 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service. The revenue didn’t disappear — it moved to Google, Meta, Amazon, and TikTok.
The fallout was immediate and severe. More than a third of U.S. newspapers operating in the mid-2000s are no longer in operation. Newsroom employment dropped by about 26 percent between 2008 and 2020 — roughly 30,000 jobs. Newspaper newsrooms alone shrank by 57 percent.
Few industries have seen that kind of collapse outside of video rental stores or one-hour photo shops.
The Local Press Was the Counterweight
Local newspapers were never flashy, but they mattered. They balanced the national narrative coming out of outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times. A paper in rural Ohio or central Texas was written by people familiar with firearms — people who hunted, carried, or grew up around guns.
As those papers disappeared, so did that viewpoint. What replaced it was national wire coverage from AP and Reuters, filtered through editorial frameworks that often treat common firearms as anomalies or threats.
Local journalism functioned as a decentralizing force, the media equivalent of federalism. It kept coverage grounded in reality. That check is largely gone.
Who’s Left in the Newsroom
What replaced it? Centralized newsrooms staffed by people who are statistically less likely to have ever held a firearm, let alone owned one. These newsrooms look to the Times as their style guide on everything from grammar to gun politics. They want to be in the cool crowd. And the cool crowd, as any gun owner can tell you, thinks you’re a problem to be solved.
The irony is that even the big coastal papers are showing some cracks. The Times, the Post, and the LA Times have all recently parted ways with their most stridently anti-gun opinion editors — not out of any sudden respect for the Second Amendment, but because the political winds shifted with the 2024 election cycle and they didn’t want to look completely out of touch.
They haven’t hired pro-gun replacements. But a few almost-moderate takes on firearms have squeaked through lately, which by recent standards counts as progress.
The Ecosystem has Shifted
The media ecosystem hasn’t disappeared — it’s reorganized. Independent outlets, podcasts, and subscription platforms have filled part of the void.
Pro-Second Amendment voices have more direct access to audiences than they did two decades ago.
But the broader landscape is more segmented. Media alignment now mirrors political alignment. The middle ground that once existed — including pro-gun Democrats and regionally diverse newsroom perspectives — has narrowed significantly.
Bottom Line
The mainstream media’s hostility toward the Second Amendment isn’t just about bias. It’s about who survived the economic apocalypse that Big Tech brought down on local journalism, and who didn’t.
The people still shaping the narrative are, in many cases, far removed from the communities and culture they’re covering.
More on TTAG about how the media is spinning the Second Amendment:
- That Evil AR-15 Again: Media Spins Rifles, Suppressors, and the Shane Tamura Shooting
- Headlines Reveal Media Bias On Florida Measure To Restore Young Adults’ Rights
- New Study: American Teens Distrust ‘Mainstream’ Media More Than Adults Do
- CCRKBA Calls Out Media Over Latest Statistics Affirming That More Guns Mean Less Crime
- Missouri AG Puts Social Media Companies On Notice Over Alleged 2A-Related Muzzling
I’m old. I don’t remember anything particularly pro 2-A in newspapers of yore but they were more likely to report accurately. Way back actual ads for guns ran but mainly hunting(this was south of Chicago). The rags like the Chicago Tribune were also “conservative” unlike the leftard crap now. Do your own due diligence & don’t depend on weirdos who hate you!
The newspapers are now part of the Matrix.
I disagree with this article’s position. Here is my simple take:
People want information, both historical information and information on current events. In days of old, the only practical way for people to get historical information was going to libraries, and they often had to be BIG libraries in cities that were a long drive away. Needless to say, that was inconvenient. With respect to how people acquired information on current events, their only practical avenue was newspapers who did the legwork and transmitted current events across the nation. (Remember, transmitting information that was more than 20 miles away was VERY expensive prior to about 1990.) That was limiting of course.
Then the Internet came along in the 1990s and it became inexpensive and convenient for people to acquire–on their own–information on both historical happenings and current events. THAT spelled the imminent demise of libraries and newspapers. Speaking of, remember that people had to wait for their local television news at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. or worse, the next day for their local newspaper. Once the Internet arrived on the scene, people could get news almost immediately–another advantage of the Internet over regularly scheduled televised newscasts and newspaper publications.
Once the Internet had its hooks into people, the GIANT Technology savvy companies were able to bubble up to the top and dominate the scene. It just so happened/happens that the type of people who overwhelmingly worked/work in the GIANT Technology savvy companies are California “Nuts and Fruits”–modern day hippies who despise firearm ownership.
By the way, thanks largely to the Internet, people are able to get information from more conservative outlets which, in my opinion, enabled Republicans to gain seats in Congress and Trump to win the last election.
So, while it sucks that ultra Far Left Pr0gre$$ive GIANT Technology companies dominate search engine operation and social media platforms, alternative voices are breaking through and making a significant difference for the better.
Existence/= dominance or even prevalence. But yes there being even a marginally conservative and more objective collection of information is about the only reason the last decade wasn’t a rush towards European standards. Building the funding stream for conservative ad revenue will be critical for any future success along with retaking a lot of the boring institutional positions.
+25
commonblowbag…RE: “People want information, both historical information and information on current events.”
Coming from a screwball who has never once Defined Gun Control by its History screams Gun Control History illiterates are not getting any pertinent Historical information from you and your ilk…The media and all those you claim to disdain appreciate you more than your dumbfuk azz can ever imagine.
Debbie W.,
“… a screwball who has never once Defined Gun Control by its History …”
That’s because:
1) Ginormous numbers of people want “gun control” present day. Thus it is very much a present day thing.
2) Superiority complexes are the true historical AND present day drivers of all forms of civilian disarmament. Note that Reconstruction Era “gun control” and recent versions of “gun control” are subsets of general disarmament. (Another subset of general disarmament was feudal Japan prohibiting its citizens from possessing swords.)
3) Most people don’t care about learning details of anything–that includes your vaunted History. Any strategy that requires the masses to learn History and details of various relevant happenings is a failure right out of the gate.
What I stated above are FACTS. Of course you won’t consider any of this because … wait for it … you cannot be bothered to consider the details of my statement, which proves my point.
Debbie is the equivalent of a very old, leaking, slow overloaded Honey-wagon chugging her way along the Information Super- highway, oblivious to others passing her in all of the other lanes.
Hey Debs, take your load of shit somewhere else and quit impeding traffic.
People want information, both historical information and information on current events.
I doubt this is, or ever has been, true of normies (most people). They just want to be entertained and consume actual information sparingly and passively.
Even given information on how to better their situation they, mostly, don’t do anything with that information.
So I guess pounding on drums and smoke signals are a thing of the past?
When it comes to targeting the Gun Control media et al the Gun Talking blowbags who permeate this forum could not hit the broadside of a barn.
Gun Control History illiteracy? Gun Talking blowbags from coast to coast own American Gun Control History illiteracy lock, stock and barrel…And the results are crowds of gullible deranged useful idiots begging politicans for Gun Control…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7A3zBe1zWRg&si=7L–3Bzz3UAfp_lq
Gun Talking Blowbags from coast to coast.
I think I should have invested in blow bags instead of bag pipes.
I was so certain Rowdy Roddy Piper could do what Dirty Harry did for the S&W .44mag.