Big Three Nets Slant Overwhelmingly For Obama’s Gun Ban Campaign

A new study of coverage by the big three networks of President Obama’s anti-gun crusade shows an overwhelmingly positive slant toward the President’s policy ideas at an 8 to 1 ratio.

The study conducted by the Media Research Center reviewed coverage from December 14 to January 17, or from the day of the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, to the day after Obama made a speech surrounded by children who purportedly sent him letters pleading for more gun control. MRC reviewed the evening newscasts as well as the three networks’ morning shows.

The results showed that stories that pushed for more gun control vastly outnumbered stories that opposed gun control by 99 to 12, or a ratio of 8 to 1.

The study also found that anti-gun soundbites were aired almost twice as frequently as pro-gun bites (228 to 134). Additionally, gun control advocates appeared as guests on 26 occasions, compared to only 7 times for gun rights advocates.

Out of 92 evening segments on guns, there were 46 anti-gun stories and a sparse 6 pro-gun stories (40 were deemed neutral).

  • CBS’s Evening News was the most biased in favor of gun control, airing 19 anti-gun stories to only 1 pro-gun segment, with 20 neutral stories. Anti-gun talking heads (42) outnumbered pro-gun talking heads (21) by a 2 to 1 ratio, with 17 neutral soundbites.
  • ABC’s World News wasn’t much better, airing 15 anti-gun segments to just 2 pro-gun segments, with 8 neutral stories. Surprisingly, ABC’s World News did offer a fairer result when it came to soundbites as anti-talking heads (28) almost matched pro-talking heads (27) with 15 being neutral.
  • NBC’s Nightly News offered 12 anti-gun segments and delivered 3 pro-gun segments, with 12 neutral stories. On Nightly News, 51 talking heads supported gun control to just 29 opposed to more regulations, 20 soundbites were neutral.

The MRC report also found that morning show coverage saw a 9 to 1 ratio with 53 anti-gun stories to a paltry 6 pro-gun segments (65 more were considered neutral).

MRC conducted a similar study in 2000 after the Columbine shooting and found similar results. “It’s clear the media’s bias against guns remains largely unchanged,” MRC reported.

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 8, 2013.
Filed under Barack Obama, Big government, Congress, Constitutional Issues, corruption, CPAC, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Gun control, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    Of course they have an anti-gun bias. They’re flaming liberals. In The People’s Republic of Kalifornia, the idiots in Sacramento are talking of a 5 cents per round tax on ammunition. Wonder how the liberal press would feel about a 5 cent tax on each work they spoke or wrote.

    • jim_m

      That’s just the beginning

      All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines would be banned, all guns would be registered and no ammunition could be bought without a special permit in California under a sweeping list of bills rolled out Thursday by state Senate Democrats.

      The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state’s 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.

      Also, all self defense and hunting ammo will be classified as “assault ammunition” and be illegal for anyone to possess outside law enforcement. The bills also create an annual tax on guns as well.

      Best of all since both houses of the legislature are dem controlled and the governor is a far left dem, these laws are all guaranteed to pass.

      What we are headed for is a divided nation where guns are illegal in the blue states and legal in the red states. Blue states are in a death spiral and the question is whether or not we let them take the whole country with them.

      • Gmacr1

        Oh, I seriously doubt the laws they pass will make it to any state that is sane or governed by conservatives.

    • Brian_R_Allen

      …. the idiots in Sacramento are talking of a 5 cents per round tax on ammunition ….

      Sounds fair enough.

      Five Cents a tyrant to provide the Tree of Liberty’s natural manure would but a blessed bargain be!

      Every damned one of them and his every useful idiot in the ground for an aggregate Three and One Half Million Dollars!

      Don’t miss.

    • fustian24

      Isn’t it time we held the media accountable for their share in all of this? Right away I propose a moratorium on any Hollywood show or movie that glorifies gun violence. Or violence of any kind. Or sex. Or drugs.

      Because if this moratorium saves the life of just one child, it will have been worth it.

      And while we’re at it, let’s limit the news media to a single mention of any whack job that goes on a killing spree. Such mention shall be limited to two written paragraphs, or 3 airtime minutes.

      It’s high time those bastards admitted their part in encouraging losers to go out in a blaze of glory.

  • GarandFan

    Of course they have an anti-gun bias. They’re flaming liberals. In The People’s Republic of Kalifornia, the idiots in Sacramento are talking of a 5 cents per round tax on ammunition. Wonder how the liberal press would feel about a 5 cent tax on each work they spoke or wrote.

  • Brucehenry

    MRC is about as unbiased as MMfA.

    • Vagabond661

      Which one of the MRC points do you think are wrong?

      • Brucehenry

        Look at the methodology in the linked study and see if it seems quantifiable to you. If a point is “deemed neutral” by the MRC, I give it about as much weight as a point that is “deemed neutral” by MMfA, is all I’m sayin’ here, Vagabond.

        • Vagabond661

          Let’s take one example “Stories advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 99 to 12, or a ratio of 8 to 1.”

          I don’t know how much network or cable news you watch, but have you seen positive pro second amendment coverage outside of Fox news? Have you heard of stories, and there are numerous, of homeowners protecting their family with guns? Of course you can cherry pick one or two, but out of the 216 stories at least half would need to be people using guns to protect themselves and I. for one, have not seen that one to one ratio which to me is balanced.

          • Brucehenry

            This assumes these stories are either advocating or opposing gun control. But due to the nature of language, especially the English language, determining if a story “advocates or opposes” is necessarily subjective.

            From the aggrieved tone of the articles (both Warner’s and the linked one) I suspect a lack of objectivity. If you don’t, fine. But MRC is an advocacy group (it links to fucking Newsbuster’s, for crissake!) and not an organization with a reputation for objective, scientific “studies.”

            Any more than MMfA is. See where I’m going here?

          • jim_m

            And you honestly believe that the MSM is overwhelmingly in favor of 2nd Amendment rights? I’m not so stupid as to believe that you honestly believe that. Your position is clearly a pose. You know very well that the media is biased to the left on this issue.

          • Brucehenry

            “In favor of 2nd Amendment rights” to one man is “crazy gun nut” to another man. See what I’m saying here, Jim?

            I would wager that there are people all over the spectrum on this. There are many, I assume, who are in favor of at least considering some forms of gun control who don’t consider themselves “gun-grabbers.” And many who consider themselves supporters of the 2nd Amendment who would consider some modest restrictions.

            The radical position that ANY new restrictions on guns or magazines is a race on a slippery slope to tyranny is what MRC is espousing here.

            I don’t doubt that most reporters are liberals, or even that there may be some slant toward a pro-control position in the stories. I’m just telling you this “study” doesn’t look to me like a study at all, but simply a counting-up of butthurt from people who are predisposed to being butthurt.

          • jim_m

            I get what you are saying. What I am saying is that 99% of the MSM are in the group that characterizes anyone who wants or owns a gun as a crazy gun nut and a danger to society.

            According to recent studies (that I have previously linked in comments) up to 60% of Americans either own or plan to own a gun. That places media bias far out of the mainstream. Your bullshit defense of them as just having a different perspective and not a bias is just that. Bullshit.

            And as I have also stated before that people who want to take away the rights of others never believe themselves to be advocating for dictatorship. They always assume that they can go just a little ways down that road and then stop wherever they want to get off. This is a lie and a fantasy. The German people never suspected their support of Hitler would lead to death camps but it did never the less.

            Support of further gun control only enables the people who want to confiscate guns. Once we start down that road the people who want to confiscate guns will not stop. Just like in Chicago a few decades go when they imposed gun registration in the city. Then they declared that they would no longer register guns, making a de facto ban. Everyone thought registration was a good idea and a rational step that would not take away people’s rights. They were either fools or liars. Which are you Bruce?

            There is no moderate position when you oppose freedom. How many moderate dictatorships have you heard of?

          • Brucehenry

            Not defending the “liberal media,” just calling bullshit on this so-called “study.”

          • jim_m

            While there is a certain degree of subjectivity the impact is going to be on the exact numbers and not on the general conclusions. Only a complete idiot could believe that the MSM and the entertainment industry in general was not strongly in favor of gun control if not confiscation. (well, either an idiot or someone completely dishonest.)

          • Brucehenry

            And only Warner or you could look at this piece by MRC and call it a “study” with a straight face. Come on. This is just an attempt to put a veneer of science on conservative butthurt.

          • jim_m

            So you honestly believe that CBS is putting an equal or greater number of pro gun guests on their shows? And NBC as well?

            Your defense of them beggars belief. You aren’t coming out with data that suggests that the MRC is wrong you are just saying that it cannot be so.

            Fact is that I am correct with my assertion that while we may disagree about the characterization of a handful of segments either pro or con, the reality is that the media is stridently anti gun and significantly out of step with America.

            If you really think that the MRC is wrong STFU about their bias and PROVE that they really are wrong. Only then am I going to consider the possibility that you are correct about their bias,

          • jim_m

            Unfortunately for you , Bruce, you are paired in your criticism with Chico, who claims that a no longer existent conservative foundation is manipulating the MRC. Even more unfortunate is that you have supplied even less evidence of bias than he has.

          • Brian_R_Allen

            …. you are paired in your criticism with Chico, who claims that a non-existent foundation is manipulating the MRC ….

            Underestimate Chico’s ability to distract and to obfuscate only at your peril — and Truth’s.

            Not while almost every topic is blunted as almost every thread degenerates into a discussion of whatever Chico wants discussed.

          • Brucehenry

            Fair media coverage does not necessarily depend on having equal numbers of pro-gun and anti-gun guests on a given news show. The horrific events at Sandy Hook brought to America’s attention the state of gun laws in this country, and there was an immediate, emotional call for more gun control, NOW! This was news. When you have new voices calling for restrictions, and stalwart pro-gun folks like Manchin “softening” their positions, that’s news.

            What’s NOT news, at least to the same extent, is that there are still the same groups opposing any and all restrictions on guns as an attack on the Constitution. Of course the loudest voices, and the ones the media would turn to for emotional impact and, therefore, ratings, would be the anti-gun folks, at least at first. This “study” was done in the first month, was it not?

            Jim, you’re not stupid. You know the difference between a “study” and an advocacy piece. You know, by the aggrieved tone of the piece, and the subjective standards used for what constituted “bias,” what this was. You’ve practically admitted as much. Why is it so important to you to be right every time? (Hint: often, you’re not.)

            This so called study will be cited as scientific “proof” of media bias in the conservative blogosphere immediately, even though you and I know it is no such thing. Warner, maybe not so much, he’s pretty gullible.

            I don’t think you wish to deny that MRC is as much an advocacy group as Media Matters is, do you? The two organizations are mirror images! That, by the way, was my original point.

          • jim_m

            It’s a straw man to claim that this is all related to Sandy Hook. It isn’t and you know better.

            What has finally come out is that you actually believe that the MSM is being unbiased on gun control. Which in turn demonstrates that you are willing to sell out the rights of everyone around you as long as you are not personally affected.

            Just as Chico has revealed himself to be a bullshitting propagandist in favor of dictatorship you also have shown hat you are willing to go down whatever slippery slope to dictatorship that you find appealing and you will apologize for it all the way until it is too late.

          • Brucehenry

            The “study” was begun the day after Sandy Hook. Don’t be silly about a “straw man.”

            I never said the media was unbiased about gun control. I said this “study” is not a study, and that MRC is an advocacy group, not a source of impartial objectivity. the same can be said of Media Matters. That was my original point.

            Please spare me the loony rantings and ravings about slippery slopes and dictatorships. You always get carried away. You’ve already Godwinized this thread above, just calm down.

          • jim_m

            And you are still avoiding the presentation of any actual facts to support your BS opinion. All you have is an attack on the source of the information. You won’t even contest the facts other than to say they must be false based on your fascist ideology.

            And while you obviously think it irrelevant, the majority of Germans did not agree with the Nazi party antisemitism. However, they turned a blind eye to it because they felt hat other aspects of their policy were good for the country. In much the same way you are willing to sell out the freedoms of others. I didn’t call you a Nazi. I just told you that you were no better than the millions of non Nazi’s who stood by and did nothing, thinking that the really bad things would never happen.

            You are willing to sell out constitutional liberties because you think that times have changed and people are no longer the same as they were 200 years ago. You have no rationale for claiming that all constitutional liberties should not be eliminated. Your willingness to infringe on others rights is evidence that you are already on that slippery slope you just won’/t admit it.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s not my opinion that this is not a study, but a fact. It’s not my opinion that MRC is an advocacy group, but a fact. I’m not contesting any one specific “fact” presented in this “study” but pointing out that one may want to be skeptical of any “facts” presented in a bogus “study” designed, created, conducted, and promoted by an advocacy group.

            Can’t you get that?

          • jim_m

            It is not a study per se, but it is a survey of the media and its content. You are denying that the media is biased. You are an apologist for people who want to take away our rights. Period.

          • Brucehenry

            But Warner is CALLING it a study. MRC is CALLING it a study. It will be cited, starting a few hours ago, as new, unimpeachable “proof” of the sinister conspiracy that is the lamestream media. This is how the echo chamber works.

            I am making no claims about media bias. I am poking fun of conspiracy-minded fools like War….like some guys around here.

            Actually, Jim, I pretty much support the absolutist position most of you geniuses have taken on gun control. That is to say, I haven’t heard any new restrictions proposed that I can’t find a reason NOT to support. But I’m listening…(Sorry for all the double negatives!)

            My actual position on guns is probably pretty close to yours, without all the Hitler and Stalin references. I’m not an enthusiast about guns, but I don’t wish to give up my right to own one, and don’t want to take away yours.

          • jim_m

            I haven’t heard any new restrictions proposed that I can’t find a reason NOT to support.

            You would probably be better off saying that you can’t find any reason to support them, or hat you cannot find any reason not to oppose them.

            I understand that the MRC has a point of view. They are not secretive about it. And while I might characterize it as a survey it doesn’t fall far from what might be called a study.

            The MSM, which claims to be objective is not. That is the point and it isn’t wrong. The MSM has an ideological objective and hey are abusing their position to drive that agenda. Your arguments succeed only in giving them cover.

          • Brucehenry

            Who’s the Chairman of the Board of the MSM, Jim? Soros?

            You honestly think there’s an organized conspiracy of the “MSM,” Jim? Because it would take an organization to have an ideological objective.

            Look, I recognize that most reporters are liberals (most people educated in the liberal arts are) and that this colors their worldview and hence their reporting. But to imply, as you do, that there is in the media some al-Qaida-like shadowy organization that has an objective that it strives to attain is just silly.

          • jim_m

            No I do not think there is an organized conspiracy within the media. However, just like academia, where the left dominates the culture and permits little if any dissent, there is a herd like mentality and a near monolithic agreement on ideology.

            And lest you scoff at the idea of media conspiracies I would simply point out that tthe media is self organizing in that regard.

            Also if you recall members of the JournoList suggested smearing conservatives and fabricating libelous stories for he purpose of protecting obama. You are an ass to think that the media has any other objective other than protecting a radically left wing admin. The MSM would protect obama even if he were murdering US citizens and they will protect him when he starts ding it in the name of national security.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes the End Of The Republic is nigh. Go quiver in fear of History’s Worst Monster Barack Hussein Obama.

          • jim_m

            No. I didn’t say that. But I did say that the media covers for him and I pointed out above that his admin will not say that they believe it is illegal to assassinate a US citizen residing in the US if they believe that person is involved in the war on terror. Why refuse to rule it out?

            Now you are going to tell me that the MSM is willing to report on dem scandals? How long did they sit on the Menendez prostitution scandal? You really are a useful idiot.

          • Brucehenry

            I share your concern about killing of American citizens without due process. Just as I was concerned about so-called “warrantless wiretaps,” indefinite Gitmo detentions, and renditions, and warned that such precedents were dangerous, I am alarmed by this development.

            And just as I heard that “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” from Bushies back then, I’m hearing similar nonsense from Obama fans now.

          • jim_m

            I will note that you have yet to provide any evidence that the MRC study is wrong other than it came from them.

            Waiting for evidence…. As always.

          • Brucehenry

            AGAIN I am not contesting any specific item in this “study.” I have pointed out that the methodology is flawed and the standards for determining “bias” are subjective. And I have cautioned against regarding as reliable information presented in a “study” designed, created, conducted, and promoted by an advocacy group.

            AGAIN my point was that MRC is about as credible as MMfA. I note that you haven’t presented any information to refute that, but you HAVE called me a fascist a couple of times, so there’s that. LOL.

          • jim_m

            You complain that the data is unreliable but offer no evidence that it is wrong. You offer nothing to contradict it other than to attack the source. You are as bad as Chico and your pose of being in favor of gun rights is just that, a pose. You cannot defend those who are opposed to gun rights and say that you are a defender of those rights.

          • Brucehenry

            I can defend the right of Americans to hold opinions that differ from my own. And I can disagree with them without claiming that, if they win this debate or that one, the nation will perish or dictatorship will prevail or the apocalypse will occur.

            If not one more restriction is added to the law regarding guns, the Republic will survive. And if a law is passed limiting magazines to 15 rounds and not 30, the Republic will survive.

            I’m not 15 years old. I don’t see every issue as black and white, the end of the world, disaster looming, yada yada. Grow the fuck up.

            My point about this study and about MRC is valid and you know it. You insist on going around and around about it. What are you, 12?

          • jim_m

            There is a difference between defending their right to speak and defending what they say. By attacking those who criticize the press you defend the press. You have done nothing to demonstrate the falsity of the statements form the MRC. In fact you refuse to even address the issue. The guilt of the MRC is not in having bad data but in the ideology.

            The only valid point you have made about he MRC is that they have a viewpoint. Your opinion that their critique of the MSM is invalid is without any evidence to support it. Your position criticizing the MRC based on its viewpoint undermines your claim that you support the gun rights they are defending.

          • Brucehenry

            Listen, dumbass. I am not going to bother to read this whole “study” and refute, statement by statement, each allegation of bias, whether or not and by how much it is present, yada yada.

            Not when my original point was one sentence: “MRC is about as unbiased as MMfA.”

            MRC is an advocacy group. MMfA is an advocacy group. I doubt you would swallow a “study” by MMfA that claimed conservative media bias, even though it’s the kind of thing they do every day. They present it in the same style MRC does. The two organizations are mirror images of each other, as I have said.

            I didn’t even say the statements WERE false. I didn’t say the “critiques were invalid.” I said, ONE MORE TIME, that the “study” is flawed (methodology and standards) and what it claims should be met with skepticism, because, AGAIN, it was designed, created, conducted, and promoted by an ADVOCACY GROUP. An advocacy that, as you say, they do not attempt to hide. Only a rube would NOT take this “study” with a grain of salt, which is ALL I’M ASKING ANYONE TO DO.

          • jim_m

            I gave you a specific request: Show me data that news organizations are not skewing their reporting in the way that was indicated (by the ratio of commenters pro and con and by the nature of the stories) . You can’t do it. You have nothing to back up your bullshit.

            Now you are calling me a dumbass because I won’t let up in the fact that your objection is ideological and not factual. You’re getting pissy because you recognize that I am right and you are just a charlatan.

            Your claim is that the MRC’s bias skewed their report and that the report is wrong. I just asked you to prove it. I’m laughing because you can’t. You attacked the study on ideological grounds and you have not said a single word to back up your claim.

          • Brian_R_Allen

            …. The German people never suspected their support of Hitler would lead to death camps ….

            Wanna bet?

            (At the very least the bloody barbarian German people could have cared less)

          • jim_m

            There is documentary evidence that many Germans did not feel the same antisemitism that the Nazi Party promoted or at the very least not to the same extent. I doubt that more than a very few would have tolerated mass murder in the first year of the regime, but they were lead to it step by step.

            Participants in the Milgram experiment did not turn the dial all the way up in one go. They were lead to do so step by step.

          • Vagabond661

            Yes I do. If someone points out bias and you don’t agree with the source then its flawed no matter if it is truly pointing out a bias.

            Heck even the Huffington Post gets things correct sometimes.

          • Brucehenry

            Nice of you to say so. Wonder if you’ve ever said anything like it before.

            I see comments here all the time like “Seriously? You’re citing Kos?” Or “You’re citing Media Matters? Really?” I don’t see you swooping in to remind those commenters of the stopped-clock rule, there, Vag, ol’ buddy.

          • jim_m

            As for criticizing media mutters and the like, yes they are chronically biased and often ideologically blinkered in their output. Stop clocks are correct with significantly greater frequency (approaching twice daily).

          • Vagabond661

            I am not qualified to know if MMfA is biased because I don’t read it. I see bias in Fox Nation. I see bias in MSNBC. It makes it real hard for people like me or you to converse sometimes because whenever there is a topic, we feel we have to say the other side is 100 per cent wrong and we are 100 per cent right. Sometimes we are. and sometimes y’all are. You are one of the more reasonable ones to talk to, bruce.

            Kos is a little over the top to me. The thing about these places on both side is they start with a kernel of truth then make it political. The truth loses out.

            Let’s take gun control. Kids were killed by a lunatic. Instead of addressing the problem of mental health, the left makes it political. If the discussion was how we can help those who are mentally challenged, we would have some solutions by now. Instead we have to have multiple discussions on the second amendment and what gun should be banned. Something that is miles away from the problem.

          • Brucehenry

            I agree entirely, Vagabond. Especially about my being reasonable. You, on the other hand…;-)

  • Brucehenry

    MRC is about as unbiased as MMfA.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    The MSM’s anti-gun coverage is, again [and I repeat myself], hypocritical. While they are hysterical over the general populace having guns, I have seen no coverage on the 3 networks concerning the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has, since last spring, purchased enough ammo to fight the Iraq war for 24 years. And, no, I haven’t heard, seen or read where any MSM reporter asked anyone in the Obama Administration: “Why?”

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      One simply doesn’t question such things, old boy. The elite know much better how to run things than us simple folk.

  • 914

    The msm are biased against guns in non criminal hands. In the hands of Cartels and Benghazi barbarians guns are necessary, exploited and marketed.

    • Brian_R_Allen

      …. The Fascist Media (formerly the “msm” are biased against guns in non criminal hands ….

      Ever wonder why?

      Post the prohibition of every damned substance the manifestation of evil called the Left has deigned to prohibit, all of the money, all of the institutions and all of the political power including that including that over the editorial content of all of the Fascist Media is in the hands of the world’s most evil men!

      Who have decreed that guns be outlawed and that only outlaws may have guns.

      As Mr Thomas Jefferson long ago anticipated, the resolution of this massive overreaching by the vast RICO-racketeering organized-criminal hoards that prefer we call them by their street name: the “Democratic” potty, will not be pretty.

      Best move to a Republican-majority (or “red” – shudder) state and be armed and alert at all times.

  • Paul Hooson

    A new ban on assault rifles won’t pass congress. The NRA and gun owners lobby efforts are simply too strong, and congress is more conservative than the senate, where many democrats in congress simply won’t even support some ban on assault weapons, let alone the republican majority. What you will see is more guards at schools as well as better background checks. At the individual state level, you could see a few attempts to ban assault weapons that might come very close to passage. Likely, any of these new laws goes to the Supreme Court to rule whether this ban is in violation of the 2nd Amendment, which I believe that it is.

    Obama proposing a ban on the sale of new assault rifles gives him some public support as a concerned parent, who’s well intentioned to protect school children, but the reality of this ban never becoming law, also gives the gun rights advocates something as well. Both sides leave looking like a winner here, and the 2nd Amendment stands.

    • retired.military

      “Obama proposing a ban on the sale of new assault rifles gives him some public support as a concerned parent, who’s well intentioned to protect school children”

      Only for fools who actually believe that statement.

      • Jwb10001

        We should face the fact that more than 1/2 the voting public are uninformed or ill informed and the democrats are the masters of talking to these people.

        • Brucehenry

          That’s funny because I heard a lot of liberals saying the same thing, in reverse, in 2005. Frank Luntz was supposedly a genius in “framing the debate.”

        • Brian_R_Allen

          …. We should face the fact that more than 1/2 the voting public is uninformed or ill informed and the democrats are the masters of talking to that half ….

          TRANSLATION: Most of the more than half of the population that is of below average intelligence is too damned dumb to know it’s lied to and or is too damned mean-spirited and/or greedy to care.

          The “Democratic” potty is the street name of the manifestation of evil that takes its unearned and undeserved power from lying to that demographic, which, as the consequence, forms the “Democratic” potty’s “base.”

  • retired.military

    In other news the sun rose in the east this morning.

  • Pocono Shooting Range

    Good thing for the internet. At least we get a chance to put some truth out there.

  • StandUp4OurRights

    It’s quite sad and I have lost much faith in media. I don’t really believe or figure they leave out the parts they don’t want you to know.

  • Commander_Chico

    Typical Warner piece, complaining about others exercising free speech. As usual, anyone having a point of view other than Warner’s is “bias.”

    But what about this, Warner’s source, the “Media Research Center” is funded by the Olin Foundation, which gets its money from Olin Corporation, a big ammo manufacturer. So they have a point of view and self-interest, too.

    People can make up their own minds based on their own perceptions and experiences about guns anyways. Since experiences differ, opinions will differ. Get over it, Warner.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      There goes Chico, complaining about Warner exercising free speech. And that’s not just snark. I’ll bet Warner would like to remedy the situation of media bias by having more [pro-gun] speech, not less. Let the MSM put on more points of view, not less. You, on the other hand, apparently want Warner to shut up – or does “get over it, Warner” mean that you want Warner to write more pieces?

      • jim_m

        Chico believes in the traditional defense of the American left: “Because, shut up.”

    • jim_m

      the last annual report that the MRC has online states some 86 foundation donors, the Olin foundation is not among them.

      Furthermore the MRC income was $11.4 M. With 86 foundation donors it is unlikely that any single donor has overwhelming influence.

      What Chico is engaged in is typical fascist silencing of opposition.

      The John M. Olin Foundation funded the MRC in 2001 so their support seems to have ended (really ended – see below). So we see that the claim of funding is just another fascist lie from Chico. Furthermore, the foundation, while created by John M. Olin, is not part of Olin Corporation, so we see that Chico’s claim is nothing more than an empty smear. What Chico really objects to is a conservative spending his money on conservative causes. Chico would make such advocacy illegal.

      Finally, the real proof that Chico is lying is that the Olin Foundation closed its doors in 2005 according to the charter created by John M. Olin who provided that the foundation should disburse all its money within one generation of his death.

      Chico owes everyone here an apology for his bullshit propagandizing.

      • Brian_R_Allen

        …. What Chico is engaged in is typical fascist silencing of opposition ….

        Ever hear the one about the scorpion and the frog and the river?

    • Jwb10001

      Refuting free speech is not denying free speech it is the exercise of free speech. You are the chief of attempting to disqualify people (chickenhawks, “so says the guy on government pension” warmonger, etc.) so you’re just as guilty of this as anyone else here. In addition you seem to be saying it doesn’t matter what MRC says just because they are the one’s saying, the very same can and is said about ABC, CBS, CNN, MSLDS etal.

    • Jwb10001

      Refuting free speech is not denying free speech it is the exercise of free speech. You are the chief of attempting to disqualify people (chickenhawks, “so says the guy on government pension” warmonger, etc.) so you’re just as guilty of this as anyone else here. In addition you seem to be saying it doesn’t matter what MRC says just because they are the one’s saying, the very same can and is said about ABC, CBS, CNN, MSLDS etal.

    • Vagabond661

      So if people are getting funded from the government (ie. entitlements), then they have a self interest in keeping that gravy train going. Same with every organization who gets funding from the government.

      Ah, so that’s how votes are bought. Thanks for clearing that up, Chico. So many on the left lambasted Romney for pointing that out.

    • Vagabond661

      “But what about this, Warner’s source, the “Media Research Center” is funded by the Olin Foundation, which gets its money from Olin Corporation, a big ammo manufacturer. So they have a point of view and self-interest, too.”

      They also have a self interest in getting the truth out there instead of propaganda from the MSM and the Regime.

      • jim_m

        They also closed 7 years ago, so Chico’s point is that a foundation that no longer exists is exerting financial pressure on the MRC to skew their findings. His comments are lies and bullshit to cover for his totalitarian agenda.

  • Par4Course

    Doing something senseless and useless (i.e., taking certain guns or ammo away from law-abiding citizens) keeps us from finding real solutions to violence, whether in the form of better policing of violent neighborhoods or improving mental health treatment. Government can’t do its job of preventing crime in high crime areas like Detroit, the south side of Chicago or South Central LA, so it focuses on punishing non-criminals who want to protect themselves. The more non-essential functions government tries to perform, the more its performance of essential functions suffers. The MSM’s biased, unprofessional coverage of the gun control issue exacerbates the problem.

  • 914

    As an aside.. If the networks wanted ratings they would be all over the impending Benghazi impeachment. Oh, well. I guess they can bolster the ratings with the race riots instead.

    • Brucehenry

      “Impending Benghazi impeachment.” LOL.

      • jim_m

        Agreed. obama could murder citizens in their homes and the media and the dems in the Senate could never convict him. Oh wait, it appears that obama has already done this /sarc.

        But since obama also apparently sees no distinction between murdering US citizens abroad and government assassination of US citizens at home, I suspect that it is only a matter of time before we see it happen. And I guarantee you that when it does happen the media will have “a hard time finding the right angle to cover it”, if indeed they cover it at all,

      • 914

        I don’t see anything funny about 4 dead in Benghazo.

        • Brucehenry

          Me neither. What’s funny is the idea that impeachment is “impending.”

          • jim_m

            WHat’s really funny is that there isn’t a single thing obama could ever do that you would ever consider impeachment reasonable. But you could not say the same thing about a GOP president who did the same things that obama does.

          • Jwb10001

            Frog marching I think is what the dems had in mind, for you know leaking the name of a CIA desk jockey. But dropping a house on a US citizen…. nothing to see here move along.

  • Pingback: ConMom

  • Pingback: The Essential Nature of the American News Establishment: Unbiased News, or Unvarnished Probamaganda? | Daily Pundit