Neo-Luddite
Member
Streaming this predictable pap just now. It's too bad--I like Frontline in general.
FRONTLINE... on now 10PM "Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA
- Thread starter rogerjames
- Start date
- Status
rogerjames
member
Frontline generally does really good stuff. I thoroughly enjoyed their piece about the History of the Iraq conflict and its failures, the history of our relationship with Russia over the last several presidencies, and their piece about Bacterial Evolution into resistant forms and our lack of antibiotic research and funding.
In Frontline's defense, this story was about the power of the NRA and its history, not so much a story about the arguments for or against gun control. The story showed that even after tragedies that seemed to polarize public opinion and energize the anti-gun crowd, the NRA was largely able to maintain it's influence over legislation, proposed bills, etc. That's why we need to support the NRA, even if we don't disagree with how or what they always do or say.
That being said... showing the faces of murdered kids and grieving parents searching for answers and solutions (which I completely understand and sympathize with), juxtaposed against the power of the NRA killing those proposed bills without discussing the specifics of whether those propositions would actually save lives and why those propositions were opposed... is completely disingenuous and obviously meant to create an emotional response, rather than and intelligent discussion, and that is the playbook of the anti crowd.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
...
Just remember, we happen to know a LOT about guns and gun rights politics and the legal mess surrounding that issue. We are subject matter experts who take great umbrage at how this investigative journalism group glosses over, distorts, twists, misinterprets, misrepresents, and generally mucks up the issue in presenting it for mass-audience consumption.
Imagine how subject matter experts in these other fields (foreign policy, military strategy, bacteriology, etc.) feel when they see what mass-market journalists do with their pet issues. It's no different. And you or I are not really any more qualified to digest and adequately vet the information in those other episodes than the average soccer mom or hockey dad is qualified to weed through the badly-presented mess of the gun rights politics issue they made in "Gunned Down."
In other words, don't EVER assume "they generally do really good stuff."
They probably do just as bad a job no matter what. It's the nature of journalism designed to be peddled to an ignorant population (on many issues, that includes you and me!) who won't know the difference.
rogerjames
member
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Maybe.
It is entertainment, way, WAY beyond anything else. Does Frontline have a "dog in the fight" over gun control? Or Russo-American politics? Or bacteriology? Eh...that's a bit of a stretch, to me.
I don't go in for global conspiracies leading every news room around by the nose on every issue. That gives way too much credibility to the powers of the "evil mutant alien lizard overlords" or whoever you want to fear.
I give a LOT of credence to the failings of sound-bite (which even an hour long news segment absolutely IS) journalism to do anything more than present things in ways which are most sensational, exciting, and easy-to-digest for the average couch-resident in suburban America.
Look at Ebola, or Zimmerman, or Ferguson, or any number of other really rather minute, really inconsequential "worries" that the media gets average folks all wound up about. These things are so far outside the average person's realistic sphere of concern that they have to be hyped to the point of absurdity just to hold at bay the tendency toward channel flipping at 15-second intervals.
It doesn't matter what it is, if you saw it on TV, you don't have a clue. They didn't GIVE you a clue. Just a bunch of emotionally loaded packaged and processed mental junk food.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I see your point, Sam, but when it is as one-sided as this -ahem - feature was, I can't call it journalism. It fits the description of propaganda. It attempted to raise ire toward guns and our right to keep and bear them, and toward the leading organization that supports our right to keep and bear them.
I know why there is a bent toward the destruction of our right to keep and bear arms in certain political circles and it is aided by their sympathetic segment of the media. An armed populace cannot be subjugated and/or enslaved. Your mileage may vary, but do so with the knowledge that no tyrant or evil mutant alien lizard overlord ever ruled over an armed society for any significant length of time.
Woody
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14...an-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/
Kernal of truth may be in that propaganda statement.
Kernal of truth may be in that propaganda statement.
Foreign broadcasts were intended to convey a non-partisan view of the U.S. to people overseas, and thus spread U.S. influence for democracy and freedom. That kind of "propaganda" (in the literal sense of the word) is not needed in the U.S. itself, so any "news" put out by the government will not be non-partisan - it will reflect the views and bias of the administration in power, and will be used to paint that administration's political opponents as enemies of the nation. Count on it.
Jim
Jim
commygun
Member
Back in the '90's, Frontline did some fearless and quality reporting. Shortly after W. was elected they went barking mad and have been partisan hacks ever since.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
The thought has crossed my mind that Bloomberg et al may be providing grants to news organizations to cover certain topics in the way he and his employees want them covered.
Field Tester
Member
The funny thing about that is, to my knowledge the Koch brothers are bigger contributors to PBS than Bloomberg is.
ol' scratch
Member
This is speculation. The truth? If you really want to scare yourself, start tracking media ownership. If a reporter is fired from say a Gannett paper, they are black listed from all Gannett papers. Its not just Gannett. Some papers have what amounts to a hold of all newspapers. I was surprised when I started tracking the number of papers Home Town owned in Michigan. Detroit has two major newspapers- The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press. They are in a joint operating agreement between Knight Ridder and Gannett until 2087. If you are blacklisted from the Press, you won't be hired at The News.
Good luck with that.
France has less than 1/3 as many guns per-capita in circulation than the US does; over 19,000,000 firearms in civilian hands. (A fair amount, to be sure)
Their gun homicide rates are crazy low (*much* lower than the 1/3 per-capita ownership would suggest).
Permits are required for any semi-auto rifle with a capacity in excess of 3 rounds, and permits are also required for any handgun chambered in a 'military' caliber (9mm, 45ACP, etc). They have a handgun magazine capacity restriction in place, they limit how many rounds of ammunition a private citizen can own, they have an 8 tier categorization of firearms and a 4 tier registration system in place to restrict 'dangerous specimens'.
They even limit how MANY guns an individual can own, based on their permit level, with a maximum of 12. (I know several recreational shooters / collectors who exceed that limit in the US by as much as an order of magnitude.)
DESPITE all of the limits in place - which Anti-Gun proponents in the United States would so DEARLY love to have in place - France still have mass shooting incidents, as we witnessed yesterday.
http://abcnews.go.com/International...ical-newspaper-office-28051621/image-28079569
If you believe you can save all of the lives, you need to change course and focus on taking evil out of this world once and for all; for the guns... they aren't the problem.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
... That the French government knows about. I'll bet there is no government that knows how many guns are in the hands of Muslim terrorists within their borders - including our own government.
Woody
RetiredUSNChief
Member
There IS no "compromise" on this issue, period.
First of all, the RKBA is written into the Constitution as just that...a right. Not a privilege for the few, a right for ALL.
Second, gun control isn't about "compromise" at all because gun control begats more gun control, begats more gun control...until one day the only people who have guns are those in power and not the citizens. Those driving the gun control movement have clearly and publicly stated that their goal is the complete disarming of John Q. Public, period. You cannot compromise with this. And most especially over a basic right.
In support of the "no compromise" view point I've stated, I offer up the more than 20,000 gun laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS TODAY as evidence.
No more. And get rid of the tens of thousands which aren't doing any good now.
USAF_Vet
Member
#NotOneMore much?
Lets talk about compromise.
Back in 1911, citizens of New York were forced to compromise on guns. Anti's got what they wanted. What did we get?
Back in 1934, Americans were forced to compromise on guns. Anti's got what they wanted. What did we get?
Back in 1968, Americans were forced to compromise on guns. Anti's got what they wanted. What did we get?
Back in 1986, Americans were forced to compromise on guns. Anti's got what they wanted, what did we get?
Back in 1994, Americans were forced to compromise on guns. Anti's got what they wanted for ten years. What did we get during those ten years?
Back in 2013, Americans were forced.... no, we'd had enough compromising. Anti's didn't get what they want, for once.
indyogb
Member
Compromise?
Often, lately, the only "compromise" offered by some is when they are willing to accept half of everything they want for nothing, instead of their original demand of everything they want for nothing.
An actual compromise might be to reduce restrictions on suppressors to mandate background checks (I'm not saying anyone, or even I, would be for that specifically, but it would at least be an offer of a true compromise, rather than an outright demand).
Often, lately, the only "compromise" offered by some is when they are willing to accept half of everything they want for nothing, instead of their original demand of everything they want for nothing.
An actual compromise might be to reduce restrictions on suppressors to mandate background checks (I'm not saying anyone, or even I, would be for that specifically, but it would at least be an offer of a true compromise, rather than an outright demand).
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
" More firearms is not the solution"
Correct, and neither is fewer firearms. More won't accomplish much where they aren't currently banned, and banning them eventually puts us over the force-on-force event horizon where the citizenry is markedly disadvantaged relative to the criminal elements.
TCB
Correct, and neither is fewer firearms. More won't accomplish much where they aren't currently banned, and banning them eventually puts us over the force-on-force event horizon where the citizenry is markedly disadvantaged relative to the criminal elements.
TCB
P5 Guy
Member
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
I'm sure everyone here has seen this. Maybe spreading this around to the fence sitters will help. Like stated in the list of compromises above none have truly been give and take.
I'm sure everyone here has seen this. Maybe spreading this around to the fence sitters will help. Like stated in the list of compromises above none have truly been give and take.
Palehorseman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 736
I have used the expression, "the NRA rule" for sometime now. Ever notice when terrorists strike, immediately we hear from the usual suspects there are no links to Muslims and Islam.
Yet any and all shootings are immediately portrayed as the fault of the NRA and legal gun owners. Hypocrites much?
Yet any and all shootings are immediately portrayed as the fault of the NRA and legal gun owners. Hypocrites much?
- Status
