We Need Less Gun Regulation and More Media Control

by lewwaters

There is a terrific disadvantage in not having the abrasive quality of the press applied to you daily. Even though we never like it, and even though we wish they didn’t write it, and even though we disapprove, there isn’t any doubt that we could not do the job at all in a free society without a very, very active press.” John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States

The ColumbianOnce was the time that we had great trust in our media to report news fairly and give us relevant information of what is happening within our cities as well as across the nation. The media was tenacious in pursuing Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States, leading him to become the first ever President to resign the office in 1974.

Perhaps fueled by their success in that endeavor, the media of today bears little resemblance to the media we largely trusted so many years ago. The media of today seems less inclined towards reporting news fairly, especially in political news and more inclined to push an agenda favored by the leftwing politicians.

Those of us old enough to remember can recall how throughout the 1980’s the media ridiculed Ronald Reagan with Sam Donaldson coming on after televised speeches to inform of us what he “really said or meant.” George H.W. Bush was portrayed as a buffoon. And of course, the relentless assaults on George W. Bush through the 2000’s even to the point in 2004 of a fabricated memo surfacing and reported as “fake but accurate.”

B.J. Clinton was glorified in several ways with the media having to be unwillingly dragged into reporting his involvement with Monica Lewinsky through the 1990’s and of course, Barack Obama who the media granted a total pass to, continuing throughout his terms, showing no interest in Benghazi, Fast & Furious or the economy sliding towards collapse since he assumed office. Instead, the media tells us well off we really are and how great Obama is.

The media somewhere began showing less interest in actual news and more interest in shaping public opinion, promoting a political point of view and always promoting more and more government control over us.

We have seen it ever since the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary as they fall in line supporting the drive towards what is labeled “reasonable and rations” gun control measures in spite of the Second Amendment granting us the “right to keep and bear arms,” prohibiting government from infringing on that right.

Oddly enough, even as some media outlets over the years have editorialized that the second amendment is outdated and irrelevant, many are quick to hide behind the first amendment when the public calls them out on reporting when it offends or embarrasses certain people.

Our own local paper, the Columbian is as guilty as the rest, having jumped on the bandwagon to push for new laws targeting guns and the free access to them by law abiding citizens, supporting the so-called “assault weapons ban,” “universal background checks” on private gun sales, “federal standards for concealed carry license,” labeling these as “common-sense measures.”

That none of them actually addresses criminals and illegal weapons is cast aside as is the measures stand to violate not only the second amendment rights of citizens, but the fourth amendment rights protecting us from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Even though the Seattle Times ran a piece indicating the potential constitutional violation in the pending assault weapons ban, the Columbian did not. Then too, the Seattle Times ran the piece sympathetic that the ban could be derailed because of it not that it violated our rights.

Although granting the authors of the bill a pass on their claims of being unaware of the provision for our homes to be inspected by Police to ensure our guns are “properly stored,” none seem interested in revealing that they are not being exactly truthful as it has been revealed by Sound Politics blog of the same provision for Police inspections of our homes written into previous efforts by the same authors.

Somehow, legislators repeatedly trying to slip legislation through knowingly violating our constitutional right against “unreasonable searches and seizures” aren’t as newsworthy as is an accident with a gun.

But then again, as said above, the goal today seems more to be shaping public opinion than actually reporting the truth in a fair and balanced way.

I am coming to the conclusion that if we are to save our country and protect our freedoms and liberties, it isn’t guns that must be limited, it’s the freedom of the press.

If for no other reason, turnabout is fair play. If our second amendment rights are “outdated and irrelevant,” aren’t their first amendment rights as well?

Maybe they should reconsider their turning a blind eye to constitutional violations.

8 Comments to “We Need Less Gun Regulation and More Media Control”

  1. I believe it’s time to take a serious look at censoring the press.

    After all, they’ve got no trouble taking away our 2nd Amendment rights, why would we have a problem ripping off their 1st?

    Like

  2. Or, we could get rid of the exemption for libel of public figures. The media would have to actually research their stories, instead of just regurgitating flat-out lies with impunity.

    Like

  3. The press is generally biased toward the opinions espoused by their bosses/owners which largely controls their slant on any story. I can hardly blame them since they want it their way as much as I’d prefer it heard from my perspective. However, it is really just a matter of standing up to the definition by good old Webster. Since it isn’t really going to be reported if it doesn’t suit the vendor then… or reported with a slant it can’t hold the muster of the definition can it? Perhaps the best we can do is to do what Lew has taken to doing and quit referring to them as a news report.

    Like

  4. Well, you do have FOX.

    Like

  5. While “turnabout is fair play”, I could not endorse a straight on attack on the First Amendment to censor newspapers. Remember, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) ONLY apply to the (various levels of) government. That is, the government is not to pass laws infringing free speech, etc. There is no application of the Bill of Rights to private actions. A shopping center, for example, my restrict free speech by limiting access by speakers or fundraisers or petition circulators, etc., though there is some limitations for ‘places for public access’ (supermarkets, shopping centers) that allow limited activities (that’s why you see girl scouts selling cookies outside the entrance to a supermarket, etc.). But private property owners may restrict such activities, as they might wish, beyond the entry. (One large employer I worked for allowed the Salvation Army to make one pass through their headquarters office building just before Christmas each year — they also supported United Way once each year were they engaged in semi-cohersive (certainly obnoxious) charitable “giving” program. But both of these “speech” activities are subject to the policies of the private business and a “left out” organization could not sue to gain access as there is no free speech within a place of business.)

    So, without the First Amendment, government would be allowed to censor that which it didn’t like newspapers to print. You can imagine how that might work out. It certainly would not improve things.

    The power of the market is what is required to correct the bias exhibited by the media. After the Dan Rather – 60 Minutes fiasco with the fake National Guard letter about George W. Bush’s alleged non-attendance at training sessions, I ceased to watch 60 minutes or watch any national or local CBS news broadcasts. I had been a regular viewer of 60 minutes since it was first put on the air. In the several years since that incident, I have only watched a couple of segments (such as their interview with Barack Obama before the 2008 election).

    The Rather/60 Minutes incident also motivated me to analyze the other media I was receiving with respect to content bias. I used to be an avid consumer of media (mostly print) — but I have dropped subscriptions to a list of magazines and newspapers much too long to list here. But the pervasiveness of media bias (or reporter bias) is much more than most of us might think. Even a magazine such as Smithsonian would have occasional leftist swipes at conservative positions — often completely out of context with the particular article. Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News, (2001) explains that the bias is so prevalent (among reporters) that they live in an echo chamber and feel like their views match those of the general public. See http://www.bernardgoldberg.com for commentary on media bias.

    I now select the media I read or watch based on either the more balanced presentation (such as the Wall Street Journal that appears to attempt to offer balanced views) or magazines and web sites where commentators express opinions I generally find favorable. (This doesn’t mean that I don’t hear the left’s speech — it’s impossible to avoid entirely.) However, I do not PAY anything toward supporting those I disagree with. I suggest that others do the same, because in the end, all media companies must have buyers of their products to survive — and the failure of the several Liberal/Progressive radio and TV networks proves that there are not enough liberals/progressives alone to support the biased media.

    When I was growing up, most newspapers and magazines were separately owned and the independent owners would express opinions (in their editorial pages) either as conservatives or liberals (as fit their belief system). Consumers of media could pick and choose among the alternatives. However, the combination of estate taxes and transfer of media firms to younger generation(s) that weren’t so interested in the business caused a consolidation of the media companies. Today, almost all newspapers are owned by giant media companies. Most newspapers have “professional journalists” as their editor in chief — and are extensively staffed with “professional” reporters recruited from schools of journalism (which like most of higher education are dominated by leftist views). The result has been a loss of diversity of opinion and a subculture that endorses and supports leftist policies and practices. They have lost touch with the real world.

    Like

  6. Having trouble selling your newspaper Lou B? Pay attention – you might just learn something.

    Like

  7. John – I loved what you had to say. But I may disagree with you on one point. And may be it is because I am just a young pup here. I believe in listening to a diversity of opinion and shunning or cutting out the the loud and proud that really don’t have any substance to their arguments or issues they raise. Honestly, I do it to both main political opportunists and savants.

    I honestly want to see diversity of opinion, which like you suggest may not find in the main, consolidated media conglomerates that pick and choose from the mentions, comments and topics they choose to define a “brand..”

    Because in this day and age, every sinle piece of business in and of its self is just that, a marketable brand. Which is sad, I must say…

    Like

  8. it’s high time to shut down the lying bastards in the Media.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: