slanted journalism

Uncategorized

The Follow-Up Question 60 Minutes Should Have Asked

February 12, 2018 by 3 Comments

I just finished watching Steve Kroft’s report on the battle for concealed carry reciprocity on 60 Minutes. I would suggest everyone either watch it or read the transcript. The episode was better than I hoped though you still could hear the sneer in Kroft’s voice when he asked Tim Schmidt if you should be allowed to carry “anywhere”. Schmidt, to his credit, gave a one word answer – “yes”.

One of the people interviewed was Robyn Thomas of the Giffords Law Center who is adamantly opposed to carry reciprocity. Trying to make a point on how much stricter a may-issue state like California is on who gets a permit, she said:

Someone who lives in Nevada, who’s able to carry a loaded, concealed weapon in Nevada could now bring that loaded gun into Los Angeles, into San Francisco, and carry their loaded weapon, even though in San Francisco that’s not someone who would get a permit.

 Kroft’s follow-up question was a softball asking wouldn’t reciprocity “usurp” the gun laws of anti-gun places like New York, LA, and Chicago. This brought the expected “yes” answer.

The question that should have been asked – and the responsible question to ask if one wasn’t biased – is how many carry permits have been issued in San Francisco. While I had a good idea it was a slim number, I reached out to Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Coalition and Cal-FFL to get an accurate answer. According to him, historically, the total number for both San Francisco city and county for the last two decades has ranged between 0 and 15.

Think about that. In a city and county (they are coterminous) of approximately 800,000 residents, at most 15 permits have been issued at any one time. In other words, unless you are the most connected person in San Francisco, you are not getting a permit.

Moreover, while San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego issue very few, if any, permits, there are approximately 90,000 permits in California. Many of these are issued in a virtually shall-issue manner by a number of other California counties. These permit holders are legally able to carry in any city or county in the state including both LA and San Francisco.

Never forget that our civil rights opponents and their media allies will shade the truth when it serves their purpose. Robyn Thomas did it in the interview and Steve Kroft perpetuated it by not asking the questions that should have been asked.

UPDATE: Professor David Yamane details his experiences when he asked about getting a carry permit in San Francisco back in 2013. He knew the answer going in but thought he’d ask anyway.

Uncategorized

Journalism Ethics? Yeah, Right

August 24, 2013 by

In a column posted earlier this month, Rob Cox, global editor of Reuters Breakingviews, says it would be good business for Starbucks to ban guns in their stores.

Still, the economic downside for Starbucks may be much greater than the company has let on. The current furor could explode into a nationwide call for a boycott – something that many gun control organizations are now publicly embracing, particularly following an insensitive, though legal, call by one gun rights group for its members to parade their weapons at the Starbucks in Newtown, Connecticut – where 20 children and six educators were massacred in an elementary school last December by a gunman wielding an assault weapon with high-capacity magazines.

The truth is, Starbucks and its shareholders may have more to lose than gain by resisting the adoption of a policy like the one it has for its own corporate headquarters that asks gun owners to check them at the door.

This column predated the call by Moms Demand Action to boycott Starbucks today by a few weeks. However, I think it highly likely that Mr. Cox was well aware of the impending boycott today.

Why?

Because Mr. Cox, in addition to his work for Reuters, is a founder of the gun control group Sandy Hook Promise and is their Development Director. He discloses his role as a founder of Sandy Hook Promise at the bottom of his column.

I don’t know whether Mr. Cox is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists. If he is a member, shame on him for ignoring the Society’s Code of Ethics. It states that journalists should “Act Independently”.

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.

Journalists should:

  • Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.


  • Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

  • Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

  • Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

  • Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

  • Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

  • Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

If Mr. Cox and the rest of the mainstream media ever wonders why gun owners (and conservatives and libertarians) have such a distrust of the media, he need only look to this column and his role as a founder of Sandy Hook Promise. Knowing of his role in a gun control organization, who would ever believe anything that he wrote or edited for Reuters that concerned firearms? The answer is no reasonable person because it would be it be slanted against guns whether consciously or unconsciously.

Uncategorized

Could You Slant The Poll Wording Just A Bit More?

February 18, 2013 by 6 Comments

The Colorado State House passed their standard capacity magazine ban by a vote of 33 to 31. Every Democrat save three voted for HB 1224.

This led the Denver Post to set up an on-line poll asking whether or not Magpul should follow through on their promise to leave the state if HB 1224 is enacted into law. It asks, “If Colorado passes legislation banning the possession of high-capacity gun magazines, should Colorado-based manufacturers of such magazines leave the state?”

Look at the language of the Yes vote:

Yes. Let them carry through with their recent threats to leave. Colorado doesn’t need them here.

Could you slant it any more than this?

Now look at the language of the No vote in the poll:

No. HB 1224 makes it clear they could still legally produce high-capacity magazines to sell elsewhere, and Colorado needs the jobs.

Now think about that – if the legislature really believes a product is so dangerous and so injurious to the public safety that it must be banned in the state, then why on Earth would you allow it to be produced and then put into interstate commerce?

As the Republican Minority Leader noted:

House Minority Leader Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, said it was “absolutely inconsistent” for Democrats to have added an amendment to the bill in an attempt to keep Erie -based gun magazine manufacturer Magpul from leaving the state. The amendment says manufacturers could still make high-capacity magazines for out-of-state sale.

“Apparently, they (high-capacity magazines) are not instruments of destruction when they’re purchased outside the borders of Colorado,” Waller said.

 Unless a few Democrats in the State Senate show some spine and defeat the bill, Magpul will be moving. If I were an industrial recruiter in another state, I’d be putting my package together right now. It really is a sad state of affairs in the Centennial State.