EvilMonkey Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 If I claim media bias, I will probably get the usual "oh, they are not biased", or "it goes both ways". So, not quite sure what this would be called. A while ago, ABC has hired Jake Tapper to report on all 'gun issues'. What ABC fails to mention in his bio is that he is a former employee of Handgun Control, Inc., or what is today known as the Brady Campaign. They mention a whole bunch of things he has done, but you think that the one past employment would make it in the bio? Nothing like having a slanted 'journalist' report on an issue that he is extensivly on record of being one sided on. This would be like hiring the Pope to report on abortion rights stories, or Ron Santo to do White Sox post game. Tapper's bio http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=127673 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 The same way viewers would like to know if he owned a gun. It would also be good to know the views on all the editors and anyone else who touched the story. I think if someone is going to report on guns, they shouldn't own one, or be a part of an anti-gun group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ May 29, 2006 -> 09:40 PM) The same way viewers would like to know if he owned a gun. It would also be good to know the views on all the editors and anyone else who touched the story. I think if someone is going to report on guns, they shouldn't own one, or be a part of an anti-gun group. I disagree. I think someone who owns guns can do a good job of reporting on gun control issues, and I think (perhaps incorrectly) that a gun control advocate can report impartially on those same issues. I definitely agree with EM that there needs to be full disclosure. I think that would go a long way in all media issues, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ May 30, 2006 -> 12:20 AM) I disagree. I think someone who owns guns can do a good job of reporting on gun control issues, and I think (perhaps incorrectly) that a gun control advocate can report impartially on those same issues. I definitely agree with EM that there needs to be full disclosure. I think that would go a long way in all media issues, actually. It would seem pretty easy for every reporter to have a bio available on the internet with all his activities, his voting records, any clubs and societies he has joined, etc. Then we can dismiss those whose opinions we don't agree with and just listen to those people who are like us. Why should I listen to some anti-gun nut or someone who believes in the death penalty when they write stories about those subjects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ May 30, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) It would seem pretty easy for every reporter to have a bio available on the internet with all his activities, his voting records, any clubs and societies he has joined, etc. Then we can dismiss those whose opinions we don't agree with and just listen to those people who are like us. Why should I listen to some anti-gun nut or someone who believes in the death penalty when they write stories about those subjects? Having a belief is one thing. Being an active participant in trying to change a law or policy to one side or the other is different. Gun owners don't always agree with the NRA, just as non-gun owners don't always agree with the Brady group. But put the director of the NRA reporting on gun control laws, of course it will be slanted towards his views, just as this guys are slanted against. it is not all or nothing, Tex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ May 30, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) Having a belief is one thing. Being an active participant in trying to change a law or policy to one side or the other is different. Gun owners don't always agree with the NRA, just as non-gun owners don't always agree with the Brady group. But put the director of the NRA reporting on gun control laws, of course it will be slanted towards his views, just as this guys are slanted against. it is not all or nothing, Tex. I am not saying all or nothing. I don't agree with some of the NRAs position. To me a well armed militia is not my hunting rifles, at least not in today's world. And I am not an originalist with the Constitution. What I am saying if I write a gun article, people should know this is one liberal that also loves my weapons, and believes I should be allowed to own a gun, not because of the Constitution, but because I can be responsible. So if I wrote that piece, some of y'all would claim I'm just a liberal and don't like guns, like all liberals. That would be a wrong. So when I say a gun in the home with children for protection is a bad idea, it is from a guy who owns guns and isn't anti-gun. BTW, my reasoning is, with limited time to react during a home invasion, you would need the weapon in an easy to reach location, loaded, and without a safety. The exact opposite of what you would want with children around. So I sleep better knowing my kids would not accidentaly shoot themselves or anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts