UPDATE (01:15 EST): Law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh addresses factual errors in reporting in the New York Times and Washington Post (h/t Instapundit).
How are your local TV news shows covering today's federal court decision overturning the D.C. handgun ban?
I live just outside Washington, D.C., and the station I most often watch for local news deployed a few typical media bias tricks: stacking the deck with sources aligned on one side (4 pro-ban, one anti-ban) and focusing on emotional aspects of a debate (highlighting emotional reactions to the court ruling rather than dealing with the legal merits).
Use the comments section to tell us how your local station reported the story, if they did at all.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well we definately know who
March 9, 2007 - 23:25 ET by BlazerWell we definately know who was for lifting the ban in D.C., the law abiding citizens. All two of them.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
I figure since DC's ban is
March 9, 2007 - 23:30 ET by Ken ShepherdI figure since DC's ban is perhaps the most restrictive (along with Chicago and NYC) in terms of gun control laws, and due to the heavily anti-gun culture in liberal urban centers throughout the country that this is just bias waiting to happen in local TV stations across the fruited plain.
Hence the open thread. I'd also be curious to hear if any of you found any surprisingly balanced coverage from your locals.
Let's face it, local news often goes for the sensationalistic and shocking. And when it comes to covering violent crime, it often has a pro-big-government perspective that backs gun bans, gun buybacks, and the like.
Please, no -- don't make us d
March 9, 2007 - 23:37 ET by ThisnThatPlease, no -- don't make us do this. I've been off the wagon too long. Please don't make me watch a local newscast.
The local media here has gone
March 10, 2007 - 12:29 ET by ArmedDadThe local media here has gone so far as to report on the number and caliber of the shell casings found during a "shots fired" call even when no weapon,suspect,witness or obvious target is found.
Blaze..You are a riot tonight
March 9, 2007 - 23:31 ET by bigtimerBlaze..
You are a riot tonight!
Btw....are you sure about there being two?
Not sure at all bigtimer, but
March 9, 2007 - 23:42 ET by BlazerNot sure at all bigtimer, but I can tell you that I live within 80 miles of D.C., and when I was younger we would travel up sometimes to hit Georgetown at night.
Definately not a place you want to get lost, believe me, you just keep going until you find your way, and hope you dont' run out of gas. They dont' call D.C. Dodge City for nothing.
As for how many criminals there are in D.C., I can definately tell you that number goes up during the day when the House, and Senate are in session. Sorry, I had to throw that one in there.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Haven't Heard A Thing About It Here
March 10, 2007 - 00:15 ET by emjem24Ken...
I live in Southeastern Virginia and I haven't heard any mention of the decision on the Fox affiliate I watch (don't tolerate the others). We have so much crime right now going on that they're hammering us with it. I wish they'd talk about other stuff...like how bad a governor Kaine actually is.
Anyhoo...perhaps this will be mentioned eventually but this is the local TV news and it's not as hard hitting as it could be (or as originial because they're all competing against one another).
How's that traffic...I don't know how people stand the Beltway on a daily basis but then the transportation system in this part of Virginia is pathetic.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Traffic is not so bad for m
March 10, 2007 - 00:35 ET by Ken ShepherdTraffic is not so bad for my commute. Maryland may have higher taxes, but we don't have VDOT!
Did anyone catch Nightline to
March 10, 2007 - 00:18 ET byDid anyone catch Nightline tonight? They went on about the three front running, "Republicans" being divorced and had the audacity to praise Hillary and Obama for not being divorced. Nightline also pointed out that Reagan was divorced. (I am not an advocate for divorce unless there is true abuse or cheating, but it does happen.)
What I found shocking is that they would dare compare anyone's marriage to Hillary's of Obama's. Hillary's marriage is what people in the 1970s called a 'swinger's' marriage. Obama said on television that he for the most part does not even live with his wife and kids. They also brought up Edwards --my guess is that Edwards is probably an okay family man. (I just get that feeling.)
Then they praised Romney, referring to his Mormonism, that he has had only one wife. I wonder, is it the fact that he has not been divorced and has had only one wife, or the fact that he is Mormon and has had only one wife, that Nightline is getting at. Romney's grandfather left America because Polygamy was not allowed here. Romney's father was not born in America as a result.
And let’s not forget that Romney is the ‘daddy’ of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. As far as I am concerned, Romney might as well be a Democrat. Heck, so should the other Republican front runners.
I don't want any of the front runners from either party. I just thought it was interesting how the Nightline went on about the three front runner Republicans divorces, while verbally patting Hillary's and Obama's marriages on the back --as if!
Let's hope that Tom Tancredo (click here) runs.
Debra...
www.InformingChristians.com
I just went back to the front
March 10, 2007 - 00:33 ET byI just went back to the front page, after typing the above post and posting it here. And I saw that this open thread was on a gun topic. I had just finished watching Nightline, signed into Newsbusters and saw "Open Thread" and clicked to post, without reading it through. -- I hope it is okay that it is here. I will understand if it is removed. ---Debra...
Ps... Correction for above post -- Hillary's 'or' Obama's, not 'of'.
No, it's all good. I'm just
March 10, 2007 - 01:08 ET by Ken ShepherdNo, it's all good. I'm just trying to gauge thoughts on media coverage in your neck of the woods, because I'm assuming the template is the same for most any major metro area that would cover the story. That is, slant the story heavily in favor of gun bans and use emotional arguments to crowd out the legal issues.
I can't tell you because I
March 10, 2007 - 02:01 ET by John in CAI can't tell you because I don't watch TV - don't even own a TV. But, I have been thinking I'll go over and see what Cam Edwards at NRA Radio has to say about it. I bet those guys are stoked.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Thank you, Ken. I greatly ap
March 10, 2007 - 03:53 ET byThank you, Ken. I greatly appreciate it. :o)
Debra, might you know (see
March 10, 2007 - 04:33 ET by sarcasmoDebra, might you know (see top post in this thread) whether CPAC actually allowed Tancredo to speak on TV? I'm 90%-sure they didn't... Even though nobody-else noticed what I noticed, and even though I'm apparently busting 'liberal' bias by an ostensibly "conservative" group, I think it's a severe problem. The news media does not want us to hear Tancredo for the EXACT SAME REASON they equally-don't want us to hear Dr. Paul, and they're hysterically-pushing northeastern RINOs instead FOR THAT REASON. IMNSHO.
JMR
Hi sarcasmo,The link that I p
March 10, 2007 - 04:42 ET byHi sarcasmo,
The link that I put in (click here), shows Tom Tancredo speaking at the CPAC. And you are right that the main-stream-media has not spoke of him, from what I know. ...Debra
Oh, good. This is one time
March 10, 2007 - 04:55 ET by sarcasmoOh, good. This is one time I'm GLAD to be wrong... Also, even though Tancredo's your man, please note Dr. Paul's very-strongly against illegal immigration too, and has been for quite a while...
JMR
What is Dr. Paul's full name,
March 10, 2007 - 06:14 ET byWhat is Dr. Paul's full name, sarcasmo? I would like to look up info on him.
Ronald Ernest Paul. D
March 10, 2007 - 06:29 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsRonald Ernest Paul.
D
Thank you, D. :o)
March 10, 2007 - 06:37 ET byThank you, D. :o)
Hi Debra. Here are a few li
March 10, 2007 - 06:48 ET by sarcasmoHi Debra. Here are a few links about him. He's not like other politicians, so some people like to call him "Dr. No," because he votes often as the "1" on "obvious" 434-to-1 issues, such as giving Rosa Parks (or anybody-else...) a Congressional Gold Medal using the taxpayers' money (he instead offered his own!). He's a father of 5 & the grandfather of 17 (sorry, only one wife, Carol), a US Air Force veteran, and an OBGYN who has delivered 1000s of babies. In 1976 (not 1980, '76!!!!!) Dr. Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president. From his site:
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record (emphasis JMR's)
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation
each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
+++++++++++++
The media hates Dr. Paul's ideas & actions and techno-geeks like me love him. Full disclosure: I'm proud to have voted for Dr. Paul when he ran as a Libertarian for President in 1988. Obviously, he's from the libertarian, "leave us alone" side of the Republican party, a faction which hasn't been particularly well represented during the past few decades, IMO. It's likely you and others here will disagree with some -- maybe a lot! -- of Dr. Paul's political votes & ideas, and that's fine. What I want is his ideas in the debate, and if any of those ideas are really so-weak, then handling them intellectually shouldn't be a problem for opponents, right? So why the media non-coverage of this accomplished Doctor? Why so-much "buzz," not-just-from-sarcasmo-on-NB either, on the 'net; but almost-zero TV coverage? I've only come up with one answer that makes sense: Blatant antilibertarian bias in at least the TV part of the news media.
JMR
Thanks for all the info, sarc
March 10, 2007 - 07:43 ET byThanks for all the info, sarcasmo. :o)
Sarcasmo:Media bias on disp
March 10, 2007 - 18:06 ET by ScottyDogSarcasmo:
Media bias on display on Bill O'Reilly's website right now. O'Reilly announced a poll the other nite and here are the choices:
Who is your choice for Republican presidential nominee?
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Notice Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are absent from the poll.
Newt Gingrich has not announced he is running for President yet O'Reilly is already shilling for Newt Gingrich by putting him in the poll.
FoxNews hates Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo and give them all zero coverage.
Pathetic!!
Is this Mexico or the USA
This morning at 7:30AM it's
March 12, 2007 - 03:10 ET by sarcasmoThis morning at 7:30AM it's said that Dr. Paul will appear on C-Span's "Washington Journal." Kudos to C-Span for once-again breaking the news media's widespread blackout on libertarian ideas/people. C-Span exemplifies good journalism to the point that it no-doubt shames the rest of the Anna Nicole news media. And I agree, even though I'm a Paul-fan, that there's been blatant bias against Tancredo & Duncan Hunter (a man I know practically-nothing about -- thanks Anna Nicole media!) too. And BTW, so-far CNN has been FAR fairer & more-balanced to Dr. Paul's candidacy than the allegedly pro-smaller-government Fox News, whether or not any Fox-fans particularly want to see me saying that...
And even though I wish all candidates were in O'Reilly's poll about as much as he'd no-doubt fear it, I don't mind him including Gingrich, too. I consider his "I was humpin' Callista behind my wife's back during the scandal over Slick's Monica-BJ affair, but I'm still not-a-hypocrite!" admission to be a presidential announcement. Not the most-dignified announcement ever, but for me this was Newt's official announcement since now we all know what he's gonna say in September.
JMR
ScottyDog, If this is
March 12, 2007 - 12:34 ET by JoeBobScottyDog,
If this is accurate, then Paul's lack of coverage can be excused by the media on the fact that he was not running for president. Point taken with Newt and BOR's poll, however.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
I,for one,am troubled by the
March 10, 2007 - 12:43 ET by ArmedDadI,for one,am troubled by the soft-pedaling of the anti-gun positions of the Republican presidential frontrunners.I have visions of president Rudy joyfully signing all anti-gun legislation sent to his desk by a gun-hating congress.
Best news of the year so far,
March 10, 2007 - 00:41 ET by AtheistRepublicanBest news of the year so far, another (ok maybe the first) strike at Gun Control. Of all the political issues Gun Control probably gets me the most riled up. Its good to see someone recognizing the natural rights of man. Great day for it to, weathers great out here, sun was shining, wind is blowing, temps a little warm, but should be cooler tommorow, great day indeed! Its like earth itself is rejoicing in the reclaimation of freedom!
Ok I don't think I'll be posting all that I originally intended to, I was about to say some very crazy things, its like I become more radicaly libertarian everyday
Since were on the topic, a
March 10, 2007 - 00:52 ET by BlazerSince were on the topic, and can celebrate a victory in the right to bear arms, whats everyone packing?
I have a Yugoslavian SKS, 7.62X39, modified carbon fiber S.A.W. stock, with a laser, and a red dot scope. People ask me why I went with an old Eastern Bloc rifle. The answer is dependability. You can bury this rifle in mud for a year,or rarely clean it, and it would still fire. Plus it uses the same ammo, as a Kalashnikov. I once heard, always use the weapon of the enemy , and you will never run out of ammo!
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
FN L1A1 Para BRITANNICUS
March 10, 2007 - 01:02 ET by Ynot59FN L1A1 Para
BRITANNICUS SUM
My carry piece is a Beretta 9
March 11, 2007 - 04:20 ET by wwsmithMy carry piece is a Beretta 92F, 9mm parabellum, same as I carried in the Military. I also own one of those "TERRIBLE" Assault Rifles...
The gun control debate has al
March 10, 2007 - 01:14 ET by DyneThe gun control debate has always been pretty pointless. As far as I've seen in my lifetime, if a criminal is going to commit a violent crime, he'll obtain a gun legally, illegally, or just use something else.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams
FBI report
March 10, 2007 - 01:41 ET by jaywlThe next big thing will be the OIG's report on the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act. Already Leahy and Rino Spector have been on television crying for hearings and changes to the act. I urge you to read it. It is truly pathetic. Half of the "violations" are such things as a recepient sent more than was requested or time expired or the wrong law was used instead of the correct law. It is filled wth contradictions. I am sure the uproar will last for days and then will flare up when they hold hearings.
"The next big thing wi
March 10, 2007 - 02:35 ET by ckc1227"The next big thing will be the OIG's report on the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act. Already Leahy and Rino Spector have been on television crying for hearings and changes to the act."
It's a foolish argument anyway, even if the abuses were legitimate. It's not the Patriot Act that's the problem, it's those who abuse it, just like any other rule, law or regulation.
Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes. 12 million illegal immigrants are counting on you.
You know it's sad when a fl
March 10, 2007 - 03:18 ET by FowlerK9You know it's sad when a fledgling democracy has it right, as far as gun control is concerned, than we as a 200 year old one. I of course am referring to Iraq, where each family is allowed to have (1) AK-47 (automatic) and a limited supply of ammunition and magazines. This is so they can defend themselves when evil comes calling and there isnt enogh police or miltary around. How many violent crimes would be avoided if the predators in our society knew there was a 100 % chance that the person they had their eyes on, was going to have a weapon to defend themselves with? We've given a democratic Iraq a right that we as Americans have long ago slowly allowed to be taken from us.
FowlerK9
Security Team Echo 7
Tallil Iraq
global warming
March 10, 2007 - 06:59 ET by DontabJust curious if theirs any feedback regarding the show in the UK on the global warming thursday nite. Have not heard any.
Gorbal warming is a sickness, not a science.
One recent event I recall (
March 10, 2007 - 07:38 ET by sarcasmoOne recent event I recall (from maybe long-enough-ago to polish-up an opinion in a federal case? I dunno!) is that DC Mayor Marion Barry recently stepped-out of his usual old-line big-city Democrat party-line & actually-disparaged DC's gun laws for the same obvious reasons the rest of us have for decades as Barry did nothing about the problem unless you count making excuses as it got-worse. Coincidence?
JMR
Anybody talking about Congressmen Obey?
March 10, 2007 - 13:15 ET by exLibI am surprised to not find anything on here about the Congressman who berated an "anti-war" mom and called her a stupid Liberal.
MSNBC did a story on it but gave the guy copious cover and said it wasn't a "macaca" moment because this senator is in fact a liberal, a good congressman and a general honest and well-liked guy.
The MSM admits they didn't like Senator Allen. Hmmm, I thought "Journalists" weren't supposed to like or dislike people.
ex-lib,msh and I did, I put u
March 10, 2007 - 13:23 ET by bigtimerex-lib,
msh and I did, I put up a link, will see if I can find it again....
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/09/video-democratic-congressman-goes-nuclear-on-idiot-liberals/
Couldn't of happened to a better guy...love it when the left eat their own.
2nd Amd does not apply?
March 10, 2007 - 15:01 ET by lostincyberspaceO.K. so not from the TV news, but from my local morning rag....
The last sentence from the chosen A.P. article regarding the decision...
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the Disctict of Columbia because it is not a state."
lol!
I have to admit I almost fe
March 10, 2007 - 15:15 ET by Jack BauerI have to admit I almost fell of my chair when I read that.
Here's me thinking the the constitution of the United States begins:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Apparently it now reads We the People of the United States (minus the District of Columbia)...
Who knew? How about the 14th Amendment? Does that not count either?
Presumably this Judge would rule " nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Doesn't apply also because D.C. isn't a State. Wow.
Heard that yesterday
March 10, 2007 - 15:37 ET by RJI heard that yesterday. Sadly, that's what passes for "thinking" among some of our jurists.
Wanna take bets? Liberal or Conservative?
I live very close to DC too
March 10, 2007 - 18:35 ET by radiofitz34I live very close to DC too. I was glad that for once someone (these 2 judges) realized this deal wasn't working. It's impossible to calculate how many DC residents that would have owned a gun over all those years could have been spared if they had a way to defend themselves. I've been in some neigborhoods in Southeast, Northeast where many residents probably would have bought guns to protect themselves. See I used to do deliveries around there.
Since many of the criminals got their guns illegally, there was no contest. Can't believe it took until 2007. Now the big question is, how long will it be before these residents of DC can actually purchase guns? BTW I'm not saying it will solve all problems, but some assurance for many DC residents is helpful.
Does ANYONE know the answers?
March 10, 2007 - 20:41 ET by w0tmI've asked this question whenever the subject of gun control comes up (often in the company of people who believe guns kill people just as driverless SUV's are terrors on the road. Almost without exception, the cities and states with the most strict anti-gun laws, gun violence is the highest. Obtaining a gun permit is VERY difficult to obtain. So, when you see rashes of "drive-by shootings", drug murders and robberies at gun point, how do these killers with guns receive gun permits? No one EVER answers me? Will you?
Another thing that baffles me is that, in England, now that private gun ownership is close to zero, armed residential burglaries with the home owner present has climbed from quite low, as it is in the United States, to "most" of the time. Don't the armed burglars know how to read? They are NOT permitted the use of fire arms while committing ANY criminal act, including burglaries! Is this a failure of the English school system that calls out for far more funding of education? It certainly sounds like it! Why has the climbing crime rate in Canada gone in the opposite direction of the onerous gun ownership laws of the last 20 years? So many questions but no answers.
And, lastly, in every state where "right to carry" laws have passed, armed robberies have dropped by significant amounts. Is this not a blatant violation of the civil rights of "the fault of society" robbers who have to unnecessarily put their lives at danger just to make a (dis)honest living? I think so. The ACLU clearly has too much on their plate these days as they work hard to destroy civilization as we know it. They just can't keep up. They need our help! Can't we help them out? Yes, I know "Out" where?
wotm
March 10, 2007 - 20:47 ET by misterbillIn Kennesaw GA, homeowners are required to own a gun. Some folks don't like it. But , boy, do they love the low crime rate!
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
This reminds me of my Sociali
March 10, 2007 - 22:16 ET by AtheistRepublicanThis reminds me of my Socialist friends stance on Gun Control (mildly). He thinks that the goverment should issue a pistol, assualt rifle, and hunting rifle to every citizen (maybe he said household) and that private sales of guns should be illegal. Personally I don't think the goverment should regulate guns in anyway though, forcing people to own a gun is no better then stopping them from owning a gun, well ok its a little better. That law in your town is pretty sweet even though I disagree with it though. Pretty sure that law of yours is unenforcable and unconstitutional....
AR I like the law, but---
March 11, 2007 - 01:10 ET by misterbillAR I like the law, but-it wasn't for me--I lived in the town for two years and never owned a gun. No one goes to your home and asks you to show the gun. To be frank, I was glad that outsiders may have thought I owned one.
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
wotm...Don't worry to much ab
March 10, 2007 - 21:06 ET by Clear thinkerwotm...
Don't worry to much about the ACLU, we are armed, they are not, if you get my drift?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
second amendement decision.
March 12, 2007 - 02:08 ET by PKif you go to a gun show you will notice that most every body is armed and everybody is polite.