Coolhand
New member
Ok so I've noticed that many of my more liberal friends are adopting the conservative mantra of "The media is biased in the (insert opposite political party here) direction." That my liberal friends think the media is biased in a conservative manner cracks me up, but it also kind of pisses me off. Because if smart, relatively aware young people can think that the conservative leaning Fox News can somehow make up for the shear quantity of CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Hollywood manure, it illustrates just how deceived many of us are. So, I've been looking at news stories in a critical way again.... I used to do it awhile back and just got too frustrated. Anyway, here's a good one relating to the "Assault Weapons" Ban from MSNBC. Please please please don't believe all of the "cop-killer", "children massacred", "cops outgunned", "buying spree" rhetoric you're hearing on this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here goes. This is an excellent example of left-leaning media bias and only telling the part of the story that they want you to hear. Those of you in the know or with the time to check my facts, please correct as needed. You've gotta watch the video to truly appreciate the bias.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
Let's count some of the ways....
First, the name of the ban and the use of the term "assault weapon" itself is particulary fradulent. I believe an "assault weapon" is a weapon with the capability for selective fire, ie: semi or fully automatic fire. These weapons are already banned or heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act, and a Class 3 firearms permit is required to own one (entailing background checks, fingerprinting, a $200 surcharge, etc). They are NOT subject to the current "assault weapons ban", because they are, in effect, already banned. If you start insisting on correct terminology, proponents of the ban then use the term "military style" weapons. What this means is that they look scary... ie: they are functionally exactly the same as other, non-banned weapons, but they have black plastic, bayonet lugs, and other scary things.
The video in particular was some well done propoganda. Right away they show the street-sweeper shotgun and the AR-15, implying that if the ban expires, these weapons will be back on the street. A quick check of the real facts indicates a yes and no answer, both of which work against the obvious MSNBC argument. On the "no" side, the street-sweeper shotgun, along with AK-47s, Uzis, Uzi pistols, etc were all banned under other statutes in the early 1990s, either the National Firearms Act or federal firearms importation laws. They are NOT subject to the so-called "assault weapons ban". On the "yes" side, it's ironic that they show an AR-15 as an example of a weapon that will be back on the street after the ban. The fact is that the AR-15 never LEFT the street, because manufacturers were able to make a few little cosmetic changes where needed and the weapons maintained their legality (while retaining the same functionality). Many AR-15s never had the offending features in the first place, and were therefore never subject to the ban. In fact, the weapon shown in the video could easily be a legal weapon, albeit with a "grandfathered" high capacity clip... (another reason that the ban is worthless). It's semi-automatic, doesn't have a bayonet lug or flash suppressor, and the apparent "folding stock" could be non-functional, which most of them now are. Moving on, the speech by the Garden Grove California police chief is a real gem. Apparently, unless Congress acts, Al Qaeda terrorists and criminals are going to be flocking to the gun store to buy new weapons, because they really want that bayonet lug and flash suppressor. He fails to mention that A) The weapons still fire the same ammo and the same rate, and B) Why would terrorists and criminals give a rats ass if they had a legally purchased weapon anyway? Diane Feinstein then makes an appearance as a compassionate bureaucrat (sp?)... but the video fails to note that Feinstein is on record saying that if she had the power, she would ban all firearms. The video continues with a wonderful poll showing some great statistics that support the liberal argument. Funny... I just read an article on MSNBC earlier this week discussing how the same poll on MSNBC and NBC came up with two completely different results... the spread was incredible, something like 40 percentage points depending on sample size and the population sampled. We all know the old adage about statistics being able to say whatever you want them to say. Ultimately, in 2:12 seconds of video, the conservative viewpoint got about 10 seconds of air time in the form of Wayne LaPierre from the NRA saything that the ban was cosmetic only. That is, 7.5% of the video was the conservative side, and 92.5% of it was the liberal side. Sure... Tom Delay had some airtime, but it was obviously not used in a way that supported the conservative viewpoint.
The article continues with more of the same. I particularly liked Washington DC's police chief Charles Ramsey comment that “Our streets, our homes, our citizens and our police officers will face great danger unless the federal ban on assault weapons is renewed.” This is particularly amusing when you remember that Washington DC has some of the most, if not the most, stringent gun control in the entire United States, and yet they regularly win the "murder capitol of the US" award. I could be wrong, but I think handguns are completely banned in DC.... unless you're a politician's bodyguard of course. If there's ONE place that illustrates how gun control has failed, it's this guy's city, yet the article doesn't think to mention this little tidbit.
It's hard not to reach the conclusion that this is a fundamentally biased article. I believe the effect of such an article is very dangerous, because most people who view it either don't know the facts, or don't care too, and they can be influenced. I think it would be interesting to continue analysing articles from the major media establishment on high profile topics like this, be it Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.
Justin
Note - I'm a libertarian, so don't start screaming about me being a right-wing wacko
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here goes. This is an excellent example of left-leaning media bias and only telling the part of the story that they want you to hear. Those of you in the know or with the time to check my facts, please correct as needed. You've gotta watch the video to truly appreciate the bias.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
Let's count some of the ways....
First, the name of the ban and the use of the term "assault weapon" itself is particulary fradulent. I believe an "assault weapon" is a weapon with the capability for selective fire, ie: semi or fully automatic fire. These weapons are already banned or heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act, and a Class 3 firearms permit is required to own one (entailing background checks, fingerprinting, a $200 surcharge, etc). They are NOT subject to the current "assault weapons ban", because they are, in effect, already banned. If you start insisting on correct terminology, proponents of the ban then use the term "military style" weapons. What this means is that they look scary... ie: they are functionally exactly the same as other, non-banned weapons, but they have black plastic, bayonet lugs, and other scary things.
The video in particular was some well done propoganda. Right away they show the street-sweeper shotgun and the AR-15, implying that if the ban expires, these weapons will be back on the street. A quick check of the real facts indicates a yes and no answer, both of which work against the obvious MSNBC argument. On the "no" side, the street-sweeper shotgun, along with AK-47s, Uzis, Uzi pistols, etc were all banned under other statutes in the early 1990s, either the National Firearms Act or federal firearms importation laws. They are NOT subject to the so-called "assault weapons ban". On the "yes" side, it's ironic that they show an AR-15 as an example of a weapon that will be back on the street after the ban. The fact is that the AR-15 never LEFT the street, because manufacturers were able to make a few little cosmetic changes where needed and the weapons maintained their legality (while retaining the same functionality). Many AR-15s never had the offending features in the first place, and were therefore never subject to the ban. In fact, the weapon shown in the video could easily be a legal weapon, albeit with a "grandfathered" high capacity clip... (another reason that the ban is worthless). It's semi-automatic, doesn't have a bayonet lug or flash suppressor, and the apparent "folding stock" could be non-functional, which most of them now are. Moving on, the speech by the Garden Grove California police chief is a real gem. Apparently, unless Congress acts, Al Qaeda terrorists and criminals are going to be flocking to the gun store to buy new weapons, because they really want that bayonet lug and flash suppressor. He fails to mention that A) The weapons still fire the same ammo and the same rate, and B) Why would terrorists and criminals give a rats ass if they had a legally purchased weapon anyway? Diane Feinstein then makes an appearance as a compassionate bureaucrat (sp?)... but the video fails to note that Feinstein is on record saying that if she had the power, she would ban all firearms. The video continues with a wonderful poll showing some great statistics that support the liberal argument. Funny... I just read an article on MSNBC earlier this week discussing how the same poll on MSNBC and NBC came up with two completely different results... the spread was incredible, something like 40 percentage points depending on sample size and the population sampled. We all know the old adage about statistics being able to say whatever you want them to say. Ultimately, in 2:12 seconds of video, the conservative viewpoint got about 10 seconds of air time in the form of Wayne LaPierre from the NRA saything that the ban was cosmetic only. That is, 7.5% of the video was the conservative side, and 92.5% of it was the liberal side. Sure... Tom Delay had some airtime, but it was obviously not used in a way that supported the conservative viewpoint.
The article continues with more of the same. I particularly liked Washington DC's police chief Charles Ramsey comment that “Our streets, our homes, our citizens and our police officers will face great danger unless the federal ban on assault weapons is renewed.” This is particularly amusing when you remember that Washington DC has some of the most, if not the most, stringent gun control in the entire United States, and yet they regularly win the "murder capitol of the US" award. I could be wrong, but I think handguns are completely banned in DC.... unless you're a politician's bodyguard of course. If there's ONE place that illustrates how gun control has failed, it's this guy's city, yet the article doesn't think to mention this little tidbit.
It's hard not to reach the conclusion that this is a fundamentally biased article. I believe the effect of such an article is very dangerous, because most people who view it either don't know the facts, or don't care too, and they can be influenced. I think it would be interesting to continue analysing articles from the major media establishment on high profile topics like this, be it Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.
Justin
Note - I'm a libertarian, so don't start screaming about me being a right-wing wacko
