Wa Times OpEd: Liberal media distort the gun debate (Say what?)

Not really sure what to make of this as we are all aware that the MSM generally hates guns and loves gun control. Obviously there will be some within the MSM organizations who don't hate guns and that really isn't my question.

What I am wondering is why the Washington Times would run an OpEd with a pro gun slant. Did someone at the top decide that after hundreds (if not thousands) of of MSM pro gun control articles they needed to at least have something that was not blatantly biased against the 2nd amendment?

Washington Times OpEd

Editor’s Note: The second of three articles excerpted from the new book “Emily Gets Her Gun but Obama Wants to Take Yours” by Emily Miller, senior opinion editor at The Washington Times.

I am a member of the mainstream media, but I’m also pro-Second Amendment. There are few in the journalism profession who share my beliefs. The public, therefore, gets a heavily biased view of firearm ownership and gun violence in America.

The writer goes on to list all of the basic reasons why the MSM usually just don't understand firearms such as gun crime is down, they don't know what an assault weapon really is or that a 1000 rounds of ammo is not really a lot for people who shoot.

Call me suspicious and distrustful of media motives but all I could wonder is why they allowed this to be published. The only apparent reason was the author's explanation for media slant.

There are two main reasons for the distortion of the facts. “If it bleeds, it leads” is a saying that originally described local TV stations that started their news broadcasts with stories about violent-crime victims, but it also applies equally to the national media after a mass shooting.

The other reason seemed to be that the MSM did not really understand firearms. Maybe so but you would think that when they are pushing pro gun control stories at up to a 22-1 slant they might read up on the subject.

reply to post by Bassago


I believe they don't read up on the subject because they are people too. And people believe what they are told. That said, people also believe what they feel is true, and anything that reinforces that 'truth' is hardly ever questioned for it's validity.

We often forget that the media is made up of people. We forget that as a virtue of that fact that unbiased reporting is a fallacy created out of our own sense of belief that truth and lies should be viewed with an objective lens. Neither is true. Nor do we practice what we preach.

There are, of course, those who simply lie as a means to an end. They tend to be the loudest voices, and the aspiring journalists who already have a natural bias toward such beliefs will often echo the sentiment, often times unquestioningly.

Is it right considering what we've been told to expect from news organizations? Absolutely not. But isn't it about time we stop expecting the truth to be told in an inherently bias system? Shouldn't we be seeking the truth and disseminating it ourselves?

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Bassago

 

But isn't it about time we stop expecting the truth to be told in an inherently bias system? Shouldn't we be seeking the truth and disseminating it ourselves?

A well reasoned reply projectvxn, thank you. While I'm sure most on ATS are aware of media bias my post was more that this OpEd piece was a psyop article designed to take the heat off the media. Again the two reasons given that the media made honest mistakes were 1) the "if it bleeds it leads" attitude is what media has always done and 2) the poor media just doesn't understand guns.

This feels more like a dis-info piece than an OpEd. Probably should have put it in that forum.