Uncle links to a recent Downrange TV piece on the media bias against firearm owners and firearms in general. I agree w/ Paul's claim that much of it is due to ignorance and laziness but I disagree w/ it being due to us not advertising our own events.
Example.
As I covered back in March, for IGOLD '08, all the major networks and papers in IL were contacted by the media reps and several individuals. They were told a march on the state capitol was "not news". About 2500 people showed up and it garnered only a buried copy-paste AP paragraph in the Chicago Tribune. On the same day, however, an anti-gun editorial was printed along with a long rant by Mayor Daley lambasting firearm ownership.
A pro-firearm rally in the city in July that had several hundred attendees was completely ignored. Again the media was informed.
In contrast, a march of less than 500 people a few days later to protest 'gun violence' in a city that bans most guns got front page coverage.
The Chicago Tribune editorial staff has called for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
That's deliberate bias.
2 comments:
I think if you want such a rally to be on the front page. You'd have to have 2,500 "armed" marchers.
You're not that far off, saj. Not only did the media know about the Second Amendment Freedom Rally in Chicago this summer, but they were there in droves. They filled several rows of our seating, and aside from the NRA's documentary film crew there were at least 10 other television cameras set up. I know the Tribune reporter interviewed several people, and I talked to her myself . . . but she told one of the organizers that the crowd was "not what she expected" and nothing ran in the Tribune.
ONE local TV station did a piece (it was the ABC affiliate, and it was very fair.) I watched the others in the Chicago area that night at a friend's house, and none of them mentioned the rally at all.
Why did they bother to show up if they weren't going to cover it? I can't be sure, but I'm convinced they showed up because they thought they might end up covering the event--IF it turned violent, racist, or otherwise "newsworthy." If she'd been able to interview a few old white guys in overalls with missing teeth and Klan buttons, we'd have made the news. If a fight had broken out, we'd have made the news.
But a bunch of peaceful, normal people of all races, ages, and sexes getting together to demand their civil rights wasn't worth a second look because it didn't advance their agenda. I could be wrong about that, but given the facts I observed firsthand, I don't see how anyone will ever convince me of it.
This year, the IGOLD organizers are planning for a much larger crowd . . . again. The bottom line is this: "the media" can ignore us if they want, but they no longer control the flow of information. It's getting out there despite them. They can't actually stop us from getting the message out; they can only refuse to pay attention to it.
You can't stop the signal.
Post a Comment