In the USA Today video above, the editors include pro-campus carry students. And not just one, either. In fact, they lead off with a supporter. Remember: the vox populi or “man in the street” format is inherently biased. The editors pick the comments they want, exclude the ones they don’t want, and arrange them to make a point. (Hint: the last comment is always the one they agree with.) So while the video isn’t a “win” per se, it represents a sea change in the mainstream media’s perspective on guns. As do the increasing number of defensive gun use stories on local and national TV. Are you seeing this?
I wish I had a wittier and more entertaining answer than “no.”
Oh well, that’s what I came here to say. Think of it in terms of “brevity is the soul of wit”.
It seems to me, for about the last 18 months, that I have been seeing more stories on local television that portray armed victims successfully defending themselves. And the stories have a neutral quality to them, neither promoting nor denigrating the event.
Local print news (including online “print” versions), however, seems to be just as anti-gun as ever.
I think we are starting to see some positive movement in local television. Local print and online “news”, not so much.
I agree. We just had 5 people shot at a party in pittsburgh. The local media are calling it a mass shooting are are waving the bloody shirts saying that something HAS to be done about gun control. They don’the get to worked up about the 5 single incident shootings that happen everyday in the ‘burger though.
The media gives lips service to the idea of objectivity by throwing in an “opposing view.” Typically they’ll get it from someone whose credibility is limited in some way (not highly qualified on the subject or not particularly articulate). And, as mentioned, they give their own side the last word.
Don’t believe for a moment that the MSM has any intention of covering gun rights questions objectively.
I think the more realistic among them do realize, however, that they’re losing influence, prestige, trust, and money.
Most media mavens will follow the leftist agenda straight down the toilet, but some of them may be waking up (however reluctantly) to the fact that their traditional narrative doesn’t connect with the viewers they need if their business is going to survive.
Apparently somebody in the media finally made the connection between an average two million guns per month bought in the US and the idea that those people might watch/read the news? Even if Bloomberg hates guns and gun owners he’s still got a business to run and loves our money more than he hates us.
Many people are willing to compromise their morals and ethics for money, or for their own personal gain.
The main stream media is losing influence and relevance and as a result some of their members are actually flirting with being less anti-gun. This is mostly a local phenomenon and does not apply to the larger, if shrinking national outlets.
The @mainstream media” – what is more appropriately described as the legacy media – is 100% committed to the Democratuc Party’s agenda.
Therefore, their apparent stance of gun rights or anything else reflects how the Democrats view their voting base’s likely reaction. So for example, they would seem much more anti-gun in CT than in TX and in Houston than in the outlying areas.
Over the last year I’ve seen what could be construed as at least neutral reports on firearms and self-defense incidents from Good Morning America (ABC), Today (NBC) and dead-tree rags such as USA Today.
I conclude that these MSM “news” outlets are not, nor will they ever, change their bias but that given reality and the publics growing rejection of anti-2nd tripe it is growing ever more difficult for these outlets to mock up the traditional “OMG Gunzorz!!” story without experiencing immediate backlash and it is also increasingly difficult, if one wishes to report on current events, to ignore day after day self-defense incidents.
Rest assured they will soon stop concerning themselves with keeping even the appearance of journalism and will continue down the path toward simply being a collection of celebrities telling you what they think about stuff.
Had another workplace shooting here in Jacksonville yesterday. One of the employees retrieved his gun and held the bad guy for 5 minutes until the police were close. He then let the guy go unarmed and stowed his gun before the police showed up. They caught him a couple minutes later down the street. The local news interviewed him on scene and aired it. Pretty remarkable considering all of their edited gun pieces are very anti-gun.
Anyway, yet another example that will not be cataloged as “good guy with gun prevents mass shooting” because the bad guy only killed on person before stopped, therefore it wasn’t a mass shooting. See, good guys with guns DON’T stop mass shootings! See!!!
That employee needs a raise
I have a ton of respect for the USMC, but what’s with that ex-Marine? Is that what the Corps is turning out nowadays? Wussy Rastafarians? So much for the sheepdog theory…
They don’t have to show animus with people like the Idiot from Interlachen making the point for them.
You’ve been immersed for too long, Robert. You may be seeing what you want to.
I’ll up and say that I personally feel like a school is literally the last place a firearm should be.
Unfortunately, due to this horrible thing called Reality that a lot of my young peers that lean to the Left refuse to absolutely live within, this is something that realistically would be detrimental to the safety of the campus.
If there was a better way to keep and prevent school shootings, I would be fully against this notion of campus carry, but alas there is simply nothing that comes even close to the potential an armed first responder has to ending a crisis such as this, and it cannot and should not ever be ignored.
Maybe one day.. Folly of Man and all that withstanding.
Considering I discontinued TV service years ago, after it repeatedly demonstrated to me that it provides no value in my life, no.
I see no signs that legacy media does anything other than try to tell me what they think I want to hear in an effort to rake in advertising money. The whole model sucks. They’re hopelessly out of touch with what I think and the types of stories that interest me, and I despise advertising.
Hmmm…I have noticed a much more even-handed reporting on local Nooze(in Chicago). Maybe having 22 shot(on a weekday!) has something to do with it. Was it because it was 70degrees? Dunno’ but there is a shooting on the expressway/Lake Shore Drive almost daily. And the local po-leece are a mite gun-shy with BS indictments…FWIW it’s refreshing but it doesn’t change the left-wing anti-gun bent of media.
I see local news doing a few positive stories.
I counted one supporter. The first person wash’t a supporter, she was reactive. She didn’t believe in campus carry, and would only carry in response to campus carry. i.e. she feels campus carry is a threat to her safety, and she’s responding by carrying.
The others basically think the whole thing is silly.
Medi is a business. They’ll play what ever side will net the most attention.
As someone who has been watching the media attitude about guns for ~30 years, I think there has always been a small number of neutral stories. They may seem mildly pro-gun to us due to the contrast with the very anti-gun slant we normally see. I’m not yet willing to say that they have seen the error of their ways.
Here’s a wild thought: People say Donald Trump is making a mockery of the mainstream media and revealing how much the public hates the media. Maybe that will be the straw that broke the cartel’s back. Eventually, the loss of revenue and influence has to have some effect.
Most people in college still don’t think, they emote. You have to take their opinions with a grain of salt.
Are you seeing this?
No. And even if I was, its nevertheless remains true to this day “That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain. — Shakespeare
Just another day at Pravda extolling Scientific Soviet Socialism.