Note: this column was written sometime around 2000 but it is still timely today….perhaps, more so.

One of the important topics of the week must be the current open media warfare between the Clinton administration and the National Rifle Association.   For various reasons President Clinton has decided to launch an all-out assault on the NRA and firearms owners.

This essay will not especially endear Yours Truly to many of the newspaper writers with whom I share space but the media is supposed to be a place where many viewpoints are aired, not just the politically correct ones.  Thus, we have the gist of this week’s open letter and all-purpose diatribe.

A huge source of aggravation to Second Amendment supporters is the obvious (to everyone but journalists) slant of the media in favor of gun control efforts.

Why does this happen?  Is there a huge, conspiracy among the lefties of the world to control the media and its message to John and Jane Q. Citizen?

Having been hanging around newsrooms since high school, this reporter can safely say that most of today’s journalists are liberal, a few to the point of really believing communism would work if we just gave it a chance.  This, however, is not the problem.

The problem lies in the self-realization of media people.  If you accuse them of slanting their coverage with a liberal agenda, they jump back and screech indignantly, claiming something like “my personal feelings do not dictate the reporting of facts” and “my writing is unbiased as humanly possible.”

Sorry folks, this just ain’t the truth.

Media people need to realize that they have views and beliefs on subjects and that their personal outlook carries through into their work.  Words are powerful and the choice of phrasing, quotes and sources can dramatically impact the outlook of any story, from guns to butter-making.  Gun control is a highly-charged emotional issue and for some reason, many journalists seem to think that their own agenda doesn’t shine through their keyboard.  It isn’t necessarily intentional but it happens…frequently.

Even more importantly, personal bias carries through into the selection of which stories to cover.  In this case, experience suggests that anything positive and pro-gun will rarely see the light of day while anything that reflects poorly on guns will be trumpeted as the “above the fold” story of the afternoon edition or the lead story at 6 p.m.

I have often wondered how the media would feel if President “I only got impeached by half the legislative branch” Clinton suddenly announced a multi-million dollar First Amendment Control Initiative to stop growing media abuse.  Let’s think about it.

The media is certainly dangerous, more so than firearms, so we now have a Growing National Crisis.  A misused weapon may kill several people, but the media, if improperly used, can help flame existing tensions and cause the deaths of thousands, even millions.    Even though most reporters are honest and law-abiding, they would immediately be required to enroll in a national registration program and carry ID cards even though they haven’t done anything wrong.

Another program would be to regulate small media outlets.   Since there is growing evidence that the content and usage of small operators is often uncontrolled, all small local newspapers and radio stations should be regulated or sued out of existence.  People should receive their news only through large national companies that include government regulators on in-house advisory panels, much like Smith & Wesson recently agreed to do.

Since so much free speech occurs at meetings and private gatherings, all such activity should be either completely banned or regulated to the point where each communication should be run through a national, call-in clearance bureau.

I’d suggest to concerned media members that the vast majority of Americans would support such efforts if we look at all the polling data.  Perhaps we can trot out Sarah Brady and she can plead “What about all the innocent children who are victimized by uncontrolled speech”.  Hopefully she won’t spill her Tears-Of-Compassion brand Eye Glistener on the podium while imploring to the camera.

Since we are not actually concerned with punishing the people who misuse the media, we should mount an aggressive effort to control and destroy the tools they use.  Every printing press would be required to have federal approval and samples of typography on file with the FBI, just in case an unregistered newspaper is used to incite violence.   Actually, companies that make printing equipment should be subject to lawsuits by various federal, state and local governments until it is impossible to produce an economically viable product, all in the name of Public Safety and, of course, The Children.

The same would apply to all computer printers, copiers, television studios and radio transmitters.  Citizen band radios would banned.  Anyone caught with an unlicensed CB would be vigorously prosecuted, even though the government would not acknowledge that the Justice Department doesn’t pursue charges in over 50 percent of the cases.

Of course, this is all facetious and sarcastic, but is based on current events if you simply switch the number of the amendment under fire.  I certainly don’t suppose to change the hearts and minds of my colleagues, many of whom consider this corner far less important than the obituaries and pinochle club coverage.  I would simply ask that the media acknowledge where its priorities lie and strive to present a truly equilateral picture of current events and viewpoints.

To those writers and editors who are still reading: what will be the next amendment under fire?  Don’t get too comfortable.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites