Media Tedia
What if the media staged a stunt "” or helped stage a stunt "” and nobody came? Would the media still cover it? Would California's governor get suckered in?
So begins my Opinion piece in today's Los Angeles Times.:
The 15-Second Men
By Marc Cooper
May 1, 2005
What if the media staged a stunt "” or helped stage a stunt "” and nobody came?
Would the media still cover it? Would California's governor get suckered in?
In the case of the recently concluded Minuteman Project, which vowed to blockade the southern Arizona border with more than 1,000 volunteers during the entire month of April, the answer, unfortunately, was a resounding yes.
For two solid weeks, thousands of news stories cascaded from the hardscrabble border zone, focusing on what was, in reality, a group of True Believers whose real numbers were tiny.
Though the Minuteman organizers vowed that 1,600 or more mad-as-hell volunteers had signed up for duty and that "potentially several thousands" would participate in the kickoff rallies during April Fools' weekend, turnout was an unmitigated flop "” less than a tenth of the promised throngs showed up at the rallies. The entire Minuteman spectacle, indeed, easily qualified for that journalistic catchall phrase, "a fizzle," but virtually none of the news media reported it as such.
On its opening day, I could count no more than 135 participants, even at the two kickoff public rallies along the Arizona border. At one near the border town of Douglas, two dozen reporters and a handful of TV cameras swarmed over no more than 10 Minutemen "” most of them sitting in lawn chairs or in pickup truck beds. During the entire kickoff weekend, the media troops clearly outnumbered the Minutemen. And in the days that followed, piecing together the various reports and reading between the lines, it's obvious that the Minuteman numbers dwindled to no more than a few dozen at a time. If that many people marched down Hollywood Boulevard for any cause, who'd report it?
Indeed, only 18 days into the monthlong project, the effort collapsed. Predictably, a few hundred illegal immigrants had chosen not to cross in that area during the media ruckus. Minuteman organizers preposterously declared victory, claiming they had shut down the border to illegal immigration and packed off home. Even then, most news reports failed to acknowledge the project's obvious failure "” which may explain why on Thursday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger offered sappy praise for the fiasco.
But the notion of platoons of gun-toting yahoos combing the U.S. border and possibly confronting (if not shooting) illegal crossers or even Border Patrol agents was just too much of a temptation for a sensation-driven media to resist. The streets of picturesque Tombstone were, all of a sudden, jammed with mammoth satellite trucks as reporters, camera operators, technicians and writers combed the tourist saloons for their story like modern Wyatt Earps stalking the Clanton gang. No one in the media, it seems, wanted to be the one who told his or her boss that they had trekked out to the border for no reason. So the media shut their eyes and obediently played their role as enablers to the publicity-starved organizers. That too-common Faustian bargain of modern media was quietly negotiated: We'll put you on the air or get you in the paper if you give us good copy. Show us a few guys with guns so we can get our story and go home.
"They came by the hundreds," is how the Los Angeles Times breathlessly led its first-day report out of Tombstone, only to tell us deeper in the story that the actual number of Minutemen who showed up were "200 or so." A Times follow-up three days later got us closer to the truth when Minuteman organizer Jim Gilchrist admitted: "This thing was a dog-and-pony show designed to bring in the media and get the message out, and it worked."
It worked so well that less than a week later another Times reporter filed a 1,200-word of profile of Gilchrist, an obscure, retired Orange County accountant. Even though, by then, the Minuteman Project was into its 11th day, the reporter made no mention of the actual status of his collapsing border event.
The situation along the U.S.-Mexican border continues to sink into chaos, and Congress and the White House do little more than aggravate things. In spite of billions of dollars spent to bolster the line, every year hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) of desperate migrants manage to evade the human, physical and environmental barriers and make the crossing to wind up as our maids, nannies and gardeners.
More than 3,000 died trying to make the crossing in the last decade "” 10 times more than all those who perished trying to jump the Berlin Wall.
It's a complex and vexing issue that is getting hotter by the day. Now more than ever the public needs news media that are serious, thoughtful and analytical, not compliant suckers for the wound-up partisans and pandering politicians who are increasingly likely to inflame or obfuscate the issue with goofball dog-and-pony shows.
Marc Cooper is a contributing editor of the Nation, a columnist for L.A. Weekly and a senior fellow at the Institute for Justice and Journalism at the USC Annenberg School for Communication. He can be reached through www.marc cooper.com.
May 1st, 2005 at 5:20 am
From Marc’s LATimes column: “A Times follow-up three days later got us closer to the truth when Minuteman organizer Jim Gilchrist admitted: “This thing was a dog-and-pony show designed to bring in the media and get the message out, and it worked.”
Uh, Marc, aren’t you one of the folks that got suckered in by going there? I’ll admit that your probable intent was to expose this “meet-up” as a stunt, but by going there, by writing a couple of columns and posts didn’t you also feed into the dog-and-pony show?
On the other hand, I did enjoy your posts/columns.
May 1st, 2005 at 5:30 am
Bravo, let’s hope it discomfits a few blue-haired editors.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:22 am
Damn fine piece Marc. This is the kind of no holds barred pontificating we need: Chillingly accurate.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:23 am
Marc, what we need is a really good stunt, maybe in Vegas? You know, terrorists running around in sin city – massive investigations. Than we all gather together, get drunk, and maybe lose some money at the tables – hey, that would be an attractive stunt…hehe
May 1st, 2005 at 9:47 am
Arnold’s endorsements of the “success” of the Minutemen went two days running as headlines in my local Chron last week. Bigger deal in our news than the Minutemen themselves. I don’t get it…except I do. The guy’s a bonehead. The only other guy I’ve seen state that they were successful in stopping illegals was Jeff Gannon on Bill Maher. I’m waiting for Homer Simpson to weigh in…
May 1st, 2005 at 10:18 am
This isn’t news; this isn’t a new breed of journalists. The press has always made more of events either to sell newspapers and ads or to press their liberal agenda. The only difference here is that if they perceive something to be right wing, they’ll later admit their mistakes. If they overestimate the numbers for liberal causes, you’ll never hear it.
Think back about the “Million Man March” for black men and the “Million Mom March” against guns. In both cases, the numbers claimed or estimated *and reported* far exceeded the real numbers and those estimated by the National Park Service and other independent counts–by several hundred thousand. No matter, the press willingly and enthusiastically reported the higher numbers without question. They accepted the “estimates” of the organizers and reported them as fact even though they were there and knew better. Why? It gave the movements higher perceived support than actual support.
When “Promise Keepers,” a decent group of men with a huge attendance, held a gathering in the nation’s capital, it was mostly ignored. Can’t give them any credibility.
Several times a year I watch media coverage of gatherings to protest war, to support the environment, to push gay “rights,” to oppose Bush nominations, and to advertise various wacko movements. The press covers those protests with great enthusiasm as if those demonstrations had overwhelming support. Well, the numbers reported *always* (used intentionally) exceed those who really attend. Sometimes it’s a joke when the television crews far outnumber the 8-10 protestors with signs and inane chants of “hey, hey, ho, ho, something or other has to go.” To me it’s a joke. However, the reporters act so seriously as if this is a big news event. The newspaper even acts as a recruiter by having ads disguised as news telling everyone where and when the event will be held.
Oh, and why would you expect the media to make any corrections when they are so close to these left-wing protest groups that they hire the people who organized the protests and made exagerrated lies? In January CBS News re-hired Donna Dees, who was with them from 1987-93. Donna Dees founded and organized the Million (hundred thousand) Mom March.
On another recent matter, I saw where the BBC arranged protests against the conservatives and even put microphones on the protesters in advance. Just another case of news reporters fabricating a story or making the news rather than just reporting it and being honest about it.
This is turning too much into a rant. Bottom line, I generally agree with Marc–especially the last paragraph of his article. But, to take it one step further, while Marc essentially says that today’s press is not doing its job, I maintain that it is also biased and intentionally dishonest in their roles.
The press doesn’t need more lessons in reporting; it needs lessons in ethics.
May 1st, 2005 at 10:29 am
The press shouldn’t be duped by stunts like this, but the idea that protests ALL are under attended especially if liberal-centric and puffed up with cardboard cutouts on the Mall and falsely reported is ludicrous.
Once again Woody has charicatured himself successfully.
May 1st, 2005 at 10:46 am
GM.. No, I plead innoncent. I went there to see what the story was because if 1600 people had show up indeed it would ahve been very significant. Upon seeing it was a joke, I wrote about it that way. ALmost nobody else did.
May 1st, 2005 at 11:40 am
Exactly. I was under the impression that journalists portray conditions as they are when the get there. At that point it’s no longer theory. In my view that’s the way Iraq is portrayed. If it looks bad it probably is.
May 1st, 2005 at 2:13 pm
“Sometimes it’s a joke when the television crews far outnumber the 8-10 protestors…”
Perfect description of the Terri Schiavo demonstrations outside her clinic – which were very small in the handful of wide-angle pix that were available. And I hate to tell you this Woody, but it was the same deal with the pulldown of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad…no big crowd if you saw the wide-angle version – which you never did in MSM. For you to focus on a numbers game around the edges regarding something like the Farrakhan March, which was a large march, whatever else you say about it, shows you are NOTHING but a partisan carper. Your analysis of the media amounts to nil – your own glaring bias is very, very large.
May 1st, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Marc — I think you are missing the point. Politically, immigration is a winning issue for those who embrace elemental principles: 1. Our borders should be secure; 2. Immigration should be orderly, legal, and limited; 3. The status quo is unacceptable.
Early civil rights efforts garnered very little active participation, yet were VERY effective in changing the face of the debate. The same can be said about the start of Prop 13; or the recall (it was a joke right up to when the petition was placed on the ballot) or any number of populist concerns.
The LAT had a money quote a couple of days ago, that political elites in both parties loathe the topic of immigration reform while it’s wildly popular in the voting public. A guy like Arnold isn’t stupid, and isn’t part of either party establishment. He CAN if he wishes exploit this.
Particularly since the 9/11 commission recommended that the Feds prevent States from giving out Drivers Licenses or picture IDs to persons in this country illegally, as happened with the 9/11 hijackers. The position can be framed of fundamental patriotism, which is always a winner.
Reg — forgive me for replying to you in this thread. I agree that busboys and gardeners and such should not as a matter of fairness be denied drivers licenses, but at the same time I don’t see how you can do this and not allow potential security threats like the 9/11 hijackers to get a tool (picture ID) that can be used for terror, and also encourage illegal immigration. On balance I come down against issuing the licenses, but my larger point was this is VERY popular and is a wedge issue for Arnold against Dems who will be seen as pandering and (sadly) putting security last which is a historic weakness for the Party in terms of perception.
ITA that Newsome is a very good mayor, it’s sad that IMHO his being SF’s mayor will limit him statewide, in that he’ll get tarred (unfairly) with the rep of the Bay Area’s nuttier and more corrupt folks. Particularly since Boxer seems to have her own payola scandal to match DeLays and she’s identified with that area IMHO.
Angelides IMHO will have to embrace Dem orthodoxy on illegal immigration, and Drivers Licenses, spending on health care and schools (illegals are an enormous burden), and simple wage levels at least offer an opportunity for Arnold if he’s ruthless enough to hammer Phil with the idea that he puts illegal aliens ahead of legal Californians. Since I do not care for Arnold much (except redistricting which I think would make both Parties more moderate and therefore competitive and responsive to voters concerns) this prospect fills me with dismay.
May 1st, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Good piece, Marc. Dead on.
Oh, piffle, Woody…. Promise Keepers received an enormous media build up. Bill Clinton even mentioned them (favorably) in his weekly address to the nation. (Never mind that this was a group that called for women to “submit†to their husbands. Lovely. But whatever.)
For the record, the Million Mom March drew a couple of hundred thousand women in DC…with added thousands marching on the same time elsewhere in the country….and was reported as such. (There were around 7000 at the two LA marches. I was there. I saw ‘em.)
And, hey, unlike the so-called Million Men, the Promise Keepers, and the unimpressive gaggle of lawn-chair packing, would-be Rambos who wandered into Tombstone…all those moms who marched in 2000 had to first find baby sitters, just to be able to get out of the house!!!
May 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
The reason I think the drivers license issue is essentially bogus is that I don’t see it as affecting much of anything isolated from other more aggressive measures that tackle head-on both the employment issue – which is something that matters to me, not whether somebody’s driving a car around (unless it’s not insured or they can’t drive) – and the terrorism/security issue (which I doubt at this point will be curbed by the DMV – since any terrorist worth their salt post-911 should be sophisticated enough to circumvent the DL/picture ID issue).
May 1st, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Like most of the comments I just read…excellent piece Marc.
Off topic, but hope you can address this some time soon — being a vagrant from LA for so many years now…am truly curious about The Arnold vs Reiner possible for the next Gov…watching it from a distance with no real info…is this serious or just more gossip…as I said, out of the loop for a decade or more now in terms of LA…when/if you have time or are even remotely interested…would appreciate your view point…if you posted one already…I missed it…
Thanks!
May 1st, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Susan, last I heard Ira Reiner found the only sinkhole known to exist in California and fell into it. Or was pushed…
May 1st, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Jim…ROFL…..but…sputter…I meant Rob Reiner, saw a big blurb about that a few days back here in Vegas…..none the less still laughing at your Ira comment, if you pardon my street language, weird dude…a serious pud to me at least…
If you live in So Cal though and have a comment on Rob Reiner…I am all ears!….
May 1st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
“GM.. No, I plead innoncent. I went there to see what the story was because if 1600 people had show up indeed it would ahve been very significant. Upon seeing it was a joke, I wrote about it that way.”
We accept your plea… the jury is dismissed with the thanks of the court.
May 1st, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Speaking of drivers’ licenses…
….Here’s another, more pernicious subtext to what Marc has written: While all the attention is focused on Arnold’s blathering, and non-issues like the Minutemen, Congress is about to pass an astonishingly loathsome little piece of legislative excrement known as REAL ID….with remarkably little coverage. REAL ID has been attached, barnacle-like to the monster emergency appropriations bill that is slated to sail through a vote virtually unchallenged, because it provides badly needed funds for such stuff as American troops in Iraq and tsunami relief. .
But here’s the deal: No one outside of the conference committee drafting it HAS READ THE FINAL TEXT OF THE BILL. And they likely won’t before it comes to a vote. This means neither the Senate nor the House will have any kind of hearings or even the barest bit of discussion on this wretched piece of xenophobic detritus.
They’ll just vote it into law.
For those of you who may not know or remember, REAL ID purports to “set federal standards for driver’s license documents and prohibit states from giving driver’s licenses to anyone in the country illegally…â€
Okay, some people think that’s a good idea. I don’t happen to. And neither does anybody who actually knows much of anything about the practicality of the issue— including the National Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators….and such immigration-knowledgeable conservatives like John McCain and Dick Lugar. They’re all against it. But, hey, maybe we should discuss it in the context of an overall discussion of immigration reform.
But that’s not what’s happening. Next week, REAL ID is, instead, expected to be voted into law as a fait accompli because of its attachment to the emergency spending bill….and because NOBODY’S PAYING ATTENTION.
But wait: it gets worse.
The drivers license part of the statute ain’t the half of it, folks. Among REAL ID’s hidden provisions are a bunch of other nasty, brutish little bills that were already roundly defeated by Congress…and now have been grafted— like grotesque extra limbs—on to this barnacle bill. They are also slated to become law without so much as a blink on the part of most of the press.
For example, REAL ID will suspend any right to habeas corpus review in nearly ALL deportation proceedings. Think about it: Habeas Corpus review has never been suspended since the Civil War. And Congress is about to do it in the next few days—even for permanent legal residents who might erroneously face deportation hearing because, say, their name is similar to someone else’s, or because of clerical error, or for any and all reasons. Those LEGAL residents’ Constitutional right to legal recourse is about to be removed. (Have we all lost our minds???? Evidently.)
There’s more. REAL ID also drastically limits the ability of people to seek asylum in the US. (Under current law, no member of a terrorist organization can be eligible for asylum, so that ain’t the reason.) Furthermore, it would allow deportation to take place WHILE the asylum seeker’s case is still pending. (Let’s just say you’ve fled to the US because you claim you’ll be killed in your home country for political reasons. So while the courts are dithering about whether your claim of threat is true….you can be sent back…to be killed. Okay, yeah. That works.)
And here’s one more really fun aspect to REAL ID that no one seems to be covering: It allows the Department of Homeland Security to waive ALL laws—without exception—in order to build whatever fences and barriers DHS wants on any of our land borders. Let me make that clearer, after REAL ID passes, there will be absolutely no stipulation or limitation whatsoever as to what kind of laws can be waived if DHS is in the mood to build a new border barrier. This free ticket covers environmental laws, labor laws AND laws allowing property owners to be compensated for the confiscation of their land. (Libertarians are you listening?????)
Again, this puppy is about to be passed without so much as a word of discussion…by either Congress or press.
But, hey, why cover piddling little issues like habeas corpus when you can talk about lawn-chair minutemen…
May 1st, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Oh, THAT Reiner. Ahem.
May 1st, 2005 at 5:55 pm
To Jim first…ahem…Ok…..about Reiner…LOL!
To Rosedog…forgive my cavalier answer to your lenghty and good post about IDs and Immigrants…but said the old lady…what the hell else is new…the laundry list is sooo long now…who knows where to start or stop these days in terms of any — or all of it…meaning any or all of it, on either side of the ledger…any piece of legislature/civil rights or lack there of……
To me at bare bones…are the nuances…I like some of all, little or none of all…and think like a child in terms of a SF novel, or at the least a novella instead of a full length SF novel.. that some bright bulb will appear in terms of politics, and make life COOL again and sway the medium of what might be rational to most…though life was never that COOl…but some made us like life…..and all that portends.
May 1st, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Woody, I think if I see one more post regarding a “liberal media” agenda I am going to gag. You right wing freaks are a bunch of slogan chanting apes. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Just think of how wrong that statement is – it’s like saying someone who turns bolts on the GM assembly floor is going to be responsible for the design of the cars!
Every one of the large corporate entities has right wing capitalistic assholes running the show, they further have conservative advertisers. In fact, watching the news is like watching lock step Nazi’s march down main street, mindless drones regurgitating sterilized garbage on a media that is supposed to belong to the people.
A decent group of men – Promise Keepers? Yeah, like I want to see a bunch of grown men sitting in a stadium holding hands. You mean the guys who in their book tried so hard to make God male that they talked about him in phalic terms? Oh yeah, decent guys…nuts! hehehe
Or for that matter a bunch of freaks that hold what they call a Harvest Crusade, which is nothing more than preaching to a choir with undue religious emotional fanfare. Really decent people….
Woody, you need to get your head out of your posterior and understand the mindless chants you embrace. If there are many like you around we might all wake up in the religious tyranny our forefathers tried to escape – which play into the hands of this adminstration, that manipulates the religious right like fiddle strings. You really are not being serious, right?
For all of you who think our boarders are going to be secure, you are only kidding yourself. There is too much corporate interest in Mexico, we are to busy exploiting that country and dumping our toxic garbage on their soil. This administration, just like the previous adminstrations understands that Mexico needs this safty valve of escape for the citizens, otherwise they will not be able to exploit this country nor secure their elite lackies there.
They do not want to bring the displeasure of the corporate elite down on their heads.What makes you think that the Mexican people want to work in the poor paying gulags we have produced in Mexico? Of course a great majority of them are going to escape to try to make better lives for themselves, the only ones who would remain in that oppressive regime are the poorist of the poor – and that is who suffers from our rabid capitalistic onslaught. If you want to stop the exodus from Mexico stop the exploitation, which is the common stock policy of this and previous adminstrations.
May 1st, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Virgil…..hope bout this simple answer, and I know full well it is so, too simplistic to change most of the economics as we currently know them……
Gulping first before I say this….gulp…
How bout no employer hires illegals????…..here in the US?…oh woooops, that was too easy, no? Maybe then we would have to raise min wage…and Lord knows what else, to facilitate a good life here for folks…not to mention, and of course I am compelled to mention…the insidious amount of folks, insidious by numbers, not the actual folks, who are waiting years on end to enter this country from the rest of the planet, and by legal means…..
Oh weeeeelllllllll……..
May 1st, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Rosedog: get over it, attaching non-germane amendments to bills is allowed by the rules and how the process works. That no one has actually read the amendment is irrelevant to the process as defined by the rules. This is how it has always worked.
May 1st, 2005 at 7:43 pm
I have exactly thirty seconds, so here is a quick reference to a right-wing radical group–probably religious, too–that has compiled statistics and actual quotes about media bias and intentionally inaccurate reporting. This is not part of my regular reading, but they have verifiable information that supports my beliefs and refutes those who believe the press is without fault. Nuts, I’ve exceeded my time.
Media Research Center
America’s Media Watchdog
http://www.mrc.org/
May 1st, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Your column today in the LA Times shows why journalism is faltering. You need to do better fact checking.
The Minuteman project was NEVER supposed to have 1600 people there in one day. They had scheduled 1600 participants over the course of the month. And, 97% of those who committed to attend did so.
The project did not end on April 18th. They simply combined their operations with a local organization that already existed. Volunteers who arrived after the project “ended” served their hours with the local organization.
Call Gilchrist, Simcox, or Shuff to get the real numbers. Check your facts!
May 1st, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Susan, of course I am willing to grant that employers take advantage of cheap labor. They do this on both sides of the boarder. The only question you fail to ask is why they are fleeing over here in droves.
The reason we do not put teeth into a law that will halt the hire is the same reason we will not stop our oppressive policies south of the boarder. God forbid that any adminstration touch the sacred cow of the corporation desire(s).
In order for this system to subsist, that is capitalism – we must have 5% of the population consuming 95% of the worlds resources. The only way to maintain such a program is to exploit people abroad and at home. You see, these people who must have it all, the elite, cannot have it any other way. So you create a system with the rules to maintain such unfairness and imbalance – and it must be protected both at home and abroad.
So the plain answer is that one condition feeds the other. You ship out the jobs to keep the sacred bottom line, and you give this population informal labor in return – and you never, I mean never, keep the employer and cheap labor from each other (either in the foreign policy or the domestic sense). The answer is that neither will stop, our exploitation of foreign lands or domestic exploitation – this government will never stop either activity willingly.
I believe we are seeing the last throws of capitalism out of control, where the domestic source (fiscal reliability, etc.) in this country is drying up. Now we are feeding upon oursleves, if it does not stop what will be left is a husk that can be added to the compost of fallen nations. The question is, when are we going to realise that this is going on and wgat can be done to stop it?
May 1st, 2005 at 8:21 pm
“Rosedog: get over it, attaching non-germane amendments to bills is allowed by the rules…”
Too many….with all respect, you have entirely missed the point. Of COURSE un-related riders are allowed by the rules. It’s a strategy used all the time in the course of congressional horse trading. No one’s arguing that.
But this particular nasty-ass combo-burger bill would never, EVER get through on a straight up or down vote—even with a Republican majority in both houses. (Two many sensible Repubs are against it.) As I said before, pieces of the thing have already been soundly defeated in previous floor votes. The point is, the far reaching implications of this multi-part bill make it something that should be examined, considered and discussed—NOT be slammed through as a rider.
And Too Many, I may be wrong, but having watched your writing for months now, I honestly think if you read the bill itself, or a good summary, you’d not be pleased either.
We need immigration reform in this country. And we need it badly. However, what that reform should look like is subject to varying opinions. This is precisely why nasty little immigration laws that have potentially sweeping effects should not be riders slipped into American law under cover of must-pass spending bills. If they’re not good enough to see the light of day—they’re not good enough, period.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Make that appropriations bills, not “spending” bills.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:27 pm
And I have one from David Brock http://www.mediamatters.com that says your full of it.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Virgil…..yes of course…sorry then that my answer to you was somewhat it appears cryptic…was spouting off in simplistic terms, assuming that you assumed I felt the same…gads I for sure must post here with longer, or at least more specific answers…was a true lazy writer today…
I have not one arguement with your reasoning, and agree entirely with you….stay tuned perhaps in the days to come for more in depth writing from me…as I said, lazy writer today, but enjoyed all of it none the less……
May 1st, 2005 at 9:24 pm
This will get boring pretty fast, so this is the last I will say on the media’s lack of ethics.
A sub-site of the earlier one provided has all the numbers for you. It has more credibility than other similar sites and it has data (better than opinions) to back up its claims.
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp
This is in the report:
“KEY FINDINGS OF THE GALLUP POLL:
-Twice as many Americans believe news organizations are liberally (51 percent) rather than conservatively biased (26 percent).
-Not only do a majority of Republicans (by three-to-one) and independents (by two-to-one) see the news media liberally biased, Democrats do as well. Forty-one percent of Democrats perceive the media as liberally biased compared to 33 percent of Democrats who see it as conservatively biased.”
I guess those who don’t want to see the truth will label this poll as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
I have asked in the past about any professional ethics code that guides the media, and no one has ever come up with one. I don’t think it exists. Also, how many classes in jounalism schools concentrate on ethics? Marc could answer that, and I suspect it’s few or none.
Journalism is not a profession. It is an industry and one without standards. People on the left can howl and complain, but facts are facts. Media should spend more time cleaning up its act than covering up. (See CBS News.)
If no one wants to come up with an ethics code for media, then I’ll be happy to do it. Please forward you unbiased recommendations to me so that I can compile suggestions. Here’s my first standard:
1. Don’t lie.
That’s it.
May 1st, 2005 at 9:39 pm
“1. Don’t lie.”
Gee Woody, that would put the flacks and hacks at FOX News out of business…
May 1st, 2005 at 9:50 pm
And since you mentioned vast right-wing conspiracies, let’s not let Tomlinson, the GOPer partisan who’s taking over PBS, pass unnoticed:
Mr. Tomlinson’s tenure has brought criticism that his chairmanship has been the most polarizing in a generation. Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, said partisanship was “essentially nonexistent” in her first years. But once Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader’s Digest, joined in September 2000 and President Bush’s election changed the board’s political composition, the tenor changed, she said.
“There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction,” said Ms. Carpenter, who is now a vice president of the Museum of Television and Radio. One of the more disturbing developments, she added, was a “very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers.”
It is not a shock that Mr. Moyers’s work exercised Mr. Tomlinson. He is a reliable source of agitation for conservatives, who complain that “Now” under Mr. Moyers (who left the show last year and was replaced by David Brancaccio) was consistently critical of Republicans and the Bush administration. Days after the Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 2002 elections, Mr. Moyers – an aide in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and a former newspaper publisher who has been associated with PBS since the 1970′s – said the entire federal government was “united behind a right-wing agenda” that included “the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.”
In December 2003, three months after he was elected chairman, Mr. Tomlinson sent Ms. Mitchell of PBS a letter outlining his concerns. ” ‘Now With Bill Moyers’ does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting,” he wrote.
Shortly after, Mr. Tomlinson hired a consultant to review Mr. Moyers’s program; one three-month contract cost $10,000. The reports Mr. Tomlinson saw placed the program’s guests in categories like “anti-Bush,” “anti-business” and “anti-Tom DeLay,” referring to the House majority leader, corporation officials said. The reports found the guests were overwhelmingly anti-Bush, a conclusion Mr. Moyers disputed.
Mr. Moyers said on Friday that he did not know a content review was undertaken but that he was not surprised. “Tomlinson has waged a surreptitious and relentless campaign against ‘Now’ and me,” he said, dismissing complaints that he is biased. Mr. Moyers left “Now” to write a book but is back on public television as host of the series “Wide Angle.”
Mr. Tomlinson said he conducted the content review on his own, without sending the results to the board or making them public, because he wanted to better understand complaints he was hearing without provoking a storm. “If I wanted to be more destructive to public broadcasting but score political points, I would have come out with this study a year and a half ago,” he said.
NOTE: Bill Moyers was one of the fairest commentators on television – openly liberal but also open to intelligent, non-acrimonious, in-depth discussion of issues with a variety of guests. Attack Weasels from FOX like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity aren’t fit to be shining Moyer’s shoes – they are cretins by comparison.
May 1st, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Oh, and one last thing Woody…since you’re using polling data as proof for an argument, does the fact that 53% of Americans think the Iraq war wasn’t worth it mean it wasn’t worth it ? Just wondering if you’re with America on that one or agin’ it…
May 1st, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Yes Woody, and many Americans kept singing God Bless America as we bombed the hell out of people using paltry excuses. In other words, I don’t care what people believe – I am interested in facts.
Here are the facts, I don’t know of one major media source that is not embroiled in this system and desparately trying to maintain it. The fact is that major media always supports it’s own interests – and it is not going to disobey it’s right wing management (right wing because it wants to maintain it’s fiscal viability in this system, i.e., capitalism), nor is major media going to offend it’s equally right wing, conservative advertisers. After all it is big business, and big business does not want to decapitate itself!
So you can chant the incorrect mantra of “liberal bias” in media till your blue in the face, it changes nothing. Pardon this analogy, but a great number of the German people “believed” the Jewish people were out to get them because of the Third Reichs lies, but that did not make it true.
I don’t need a right wing conspiracy, all I need is the present systemic realities and how major media is related to them – and I do not come up with a “liberal bias” conspiracy theory.
You are right in a small way about journalism, but this discipline faces the same problem in the major media arena. It must placate both it’s management, through it’s editors, and that because it must answer to it’s constituency. I don’t think they are going to blow off their money source, advertisers, who are mainly conservative – it is a self-regulating industry.
Yes, they need a lesson in ethics – but not because of a liberal bias, but because they bow and scrape to immoral power. They want to live like anyone else with oportunity, unfortunately they have to circumcise their conscience in this present reality. There was a time when it could be said that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” now in order to survive journalists in major media hold a pen in one hand and a conscripted sword in the other – it is heartbreaking.
May 1st, 2005 at 11:11 pm
My recommendation is that you read the article “Bush’s War On The Press,” found in the May 9th issue of The Nation Magazine, written by Eric Alterman. That should give you a really good feel for what is going on in the press today. Keep in mind throughout the article that according to the first amendment the press is supposed to be the peoples watchdog – I mention this because I think some have a tendency to confuse their fantasy of a “liberal press,” with the job of the press:
http://www.
May 1st, 2005 at 11:15 pm
My recommendation is that you read the article “Bush’s War On The Press,” found in the May 9th issue of The Nation Magazine, written by Eric Alterman. That should give you a really good feel for what is going on in the press today in regards to this administration. Keep in mind throughout the article that according to the first amendment the press is supposed to be the peoples watchdog – I mention this because I think some have a tendency to confuse their fantasy of a “liberal press,” with the job of the press:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?1=20050509&s=alterman
May 1st, 2005 at 11:19 pm
dammit….
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050509&s=alterman
May 1st, 2005 at 11:33 pm
Rosedog is right.
May 2nd, 2005 at 3:15 am
Sorry, that previous post was from the “sarcastic wise-ass” version of too many steves who has long been frustrated by parliamentary tricks, non-germane riders to otherwise important legislation, and the standard of reciprocity (as opposed to debate and compromise) that infect our legislatures.
And, rosedog, having read your posts for all this time I suspect that you are correct.
May 2nd, 2005 at 7:19 am
‘ “Promise Keepers,” a decent group of men ‘
who get to gether to complain that they don’t spend enough time with their families.
May 2nd, 2005 at 7:36 am
Happy May Day!
May 2nd, 2005 at 8:15 am
Daggumit, reg. You get going easily, don’t you? I’m on my way to Gwinnett County where I can get the inside dirt on the runaway bride, and that story has to take precedence over anything else today.
As fast as I can respond in a shor time:
-reg and rosedog, whether of not the numbers for certain gatherings are great does not excuse intentionally exaggerating them by several hundred thousand just because you like the cause. Just report what it is. If there are 600,000 people there then that’s good. Just don’t call it 1,000,000.
-rosedog, to be insenstive, those marching moms just popped their kids into day care centers, as they usually do because they day car is a fine substitute for a mother. Then, they took the child support money from the dads to pay for their day of fun and bitching. This is not meant at you. I just think that a lot of those moms who blame guns rather than criminals have no sense.
-reg, just because FOX or Promise Keepers does something, that does not change my principles. Let them account for themselves. If FOX lied, will you tell us where and let me know if you wrote them about it? Promise Keepers? I see a lot better things coming from that group than situations where the husbands beat their wives and abandon the children. I believe that most wives find it comforting when their husbands act like men and take charge.
-reg, polls mean something if someone has observed for years something that affects them and for which they are qualified to give an opinion–in this case, media bias. It is not meaningful if they are asked questions about something for which they have inadequate information and for which they are asked loaded questions, as the Iraq questions can be.
virgil-You raise good points from yours side, but we see things differently. I belive there is bias based upon *quatifiable data* in addition to impressions. Newsrooms may be under pressure from management, but don’t assume that management is always right-wing. Also, management wants income, and if they get more from liberals then what do they care? I haven’t read “The Nation” article, but they probably say that the press has a duty to be aggressive. I say fine, but do it evenly and honestly. I don’t think that they do that. I also believe that there should be national standards for journalists. The self-policing is not working well.
Have I made anyone mad? If so, I’m sorry. If it’s any consolation, I’m sure that my wife will be mad at me about something today, so you’ll get your revenge.
May 2nd, 2005 at 9:03 am
Mad? Hardly but it’s the rantings of a dupe based on nothing but outlandish fantasy stereotyped opinion that’s easily refuted with facts. This is genetic. You simply have no reasoning skills at all. Many don’t so it’s hardly unique.
“Also, how many classes in jounalism schools concentrate on ethics? Marc could answer that, and I suspect it’s few or none.”
I have a J-degree and can answer it: all of them.
I don’t have to suspect you’re wrong. You are.
“Journalism is not a profession.”
This is a false comparison with medicine and engineering is the vibe I’m getting here. Try to get a job in the field of reporting and report back about your lack of credentials.
This just the latest laundry list of vapid wingnut opinion. Yawn.
May 2nd, 2005 at 10:39 am
I liked your article too, Rosedog. I’m all for making Bruce secretary of something and Max Weinberg could become undersecretay. Glorious.
May 2nd, 2005 at 10:58 am
Two Many…. Hey, I’m sure my Snarky Inner Adolescent would happily go out and party with your “sarcastic wise-ass” self. ; – ) (My SIA makes an appearance on this blog whenever she manages to pick the lock on the basement room where I normally hide her.)
Woody…
****About journalism and ethics, to add to what Mark said above, I don’t teach journalism per se, but I guest lecture 4 to 6 times a year at J-school classes, and ethics is not only taught at all of them, it comes up as a subject of concern at EVERY SINGLE class at which I lecture. No kidding. I can’t think of one class in the past—I don’t know how many years—where it’s NOT been brought up with great intensity by the students themselves.
**** the whole Million Mom and Million Man things were merely the names of the events, christened as such, months and months beforehand by optimistic, publicity conscious organizers who hoped draw that many folks….and figured—quite rightly—that the snazzy titles would help with media coverage in the runs up to the events. In neither case did a million show up—nor were any such numbers reported by the media.
***I was mostly being either snarky, or ironic or something like that about the moms and daycare remark in my first post. But, now that you take it on….I promise I’ll forgo the serious lecture, but will just say, it’s the rare mother who ever wants to put her kid in day care, who isn’t torn about the issue every single working day—and this includes the many moms who love their work and find great fulfillment and joy in their careers. Truly, it is only a very atypical woman who doesn’t feel intolerably pulled apart by work and kids all the friggin’ time, simply because ti’s damned hard to do both, and the working world is—with a few enlightened exceptions—very unsupportive of the needs of families.
Plus, you can google the numbers as well as I can about how, in this increasingly polarized economy, so many mothers HAVE to work.
FYI… I do, however, agree with you about the women and alimony (not child support). I’ve seen a lot of otherwise sensible, caring women behave appallingly when they go to divorce court. There’s no excuse for it.
*** “I believe that most wives find it comforting when their husbands act like men and take charge.â€
Um…..I think either spouse finds it comforting when the other one behaves like a capable adult….don’t you? But if one becomes the dictator—benevolent or no—that’s NOT comforting. At all.
It makes me think about pulling a weapon. Which brings me to…
***guns, here’s a link to some strange website that’s archived the rant….uh….column I wrote for MSNBC after the million mom march in 2000. Warning: I wrote it when I had a 103 fever, and wasn’t particularly in the mood to deal with pesky things like facts, so enter at your own risk.
http://www.vakkur.com/psy/moms_guns2.htm
May 2nd, 2005 at 11:06 am
Thanks, Mavis. I’m a maniacal Bruce fan, so it was fun to write. (His new “Devils & Dust album is terrific, if you haven’t heard it. It takes playing a few times through to get all the subtleties, but it’s really wonderful.)
(PS: I’d re-e-eally like to see Clarence Clemons in the cabinet too, doncha think?)
May 2nd, 2005 at 1:05 pm
You missed the point of why the press is treating this differently than it has the last 35 years. The issue is jobs. These folks aren’t just coming to take jobs as “our maids, nannies and gardeners”(I don’t know anyone with any of those employees). With the rise of H-1b/L-1 expansion, we are seeing a lot of folks that once had good jobs out of work-something the commercial press can’t cover very well because it involves major advertisers (for details look at my article):
http://www.vdare.com/misc/burns_jobs_crunch.htm
Arguing against a bad set of laws by generated by the best congress money can buy, is hard. However these folks found they could make noise showing how absured the claims the border can’t be patrolled really are. There have been other such demonstrations in the past-what made this one different is it happened in the middle of a major jobs drought-and many reporters just couldn’t bring themselves to report too badly on it.
May 2nd, 2005 at 2:37 pm
“I liked your article too, Rosedog. I’m all for making Bruce secretary of something and Max Weinberg could become undersecretay. Glorious.
Posted by: Mavis Beacon | May 2, 2005 10:39 AM”
Okay, I’ve missed something here. Can’t find any track back to that comment. Am I a complete idiot ?
(I like Springsteen too…especially Nebraska and Darnkess at the Edge, although I’m not totally enthralled. I actually went and spent a half hour out in the hallway chatting with a security guard at the Oakland Coliseum during the E Street concert a few years back. My wife – who’s also a cultist – was incredulous, but the whole damned performance just seemed totally canned to me, and all of the aging frat types singing along was a bit too much for me. (She admitted I’m right about the latter-day, post-hungry heart Bruce.) I’ll take a ragged, rasping, totally weird Dylan to Bruce’s messianic pyrotechnics any day of the week. Had to toss that out there…just to annoy. Also don’t much like U2 and Bono for the same reason. I did love Bruce’s cleverly self-aware and totally hilarious introduction/paean/puncture of Bono into the RRHofF.)
May 2nd, 2005 at 3:28 pm
“Okay, I’ve missed something here. Can’t find any track back to that comment.”
Reg…. I had a small, Bruce-as-social-commentator-related Op Ed piece in the LA Times Opinion section yesterday.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-springsteen1may01,0,2936970.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary
(Don’t know if you can get in today without doing their free registration thing.)
Hey, I’m not entirely uncritical of the Boss. Not all of his songs are created equal by a long shot. I thought all the over-the-top promo on The Rising album was ill considered and cringe-making. And, yeah, seeing Dylan with his blown-to-hell voice, looking like the evil hotel concierge in an Ed Wood horror flick, is still a amazingly bliss-making experience. Genius is genius.
But, I’m with your wife on the cult attitude….and am betting (perhaps naively) if I got you to listen a couple of times through to my hand picked list of songs, I could persuade you that Springsteen has managed much post Hungry Heart risky brilliance, including a couple of cuts on his new album.
(I too cracked up at the smart but wicked RRHofF turn.)
And, yes, I AM going to the LA concert tomorrow night.
So, in closing I would just like to say….
Bruuuu-u-u-u-u-u-uuuuuuoooooooocce!!!!!!!
Ahem. Okay. Back to work now.
May 2nd, 2005 at 3:30 pm
“…AN amazingly….” (when will I learn to proofread BEFORE posting, not after????)
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Don’t get me wrong…I love the guy…but I’m not a fanatic. We watched his pretty damn good VH1 Storytellers show the other night – with Bruce stopping several times mid each song and explaining subtexts, structures, references, metaphors.. My wife sat there enthralled…turned and looked at me and said, “I love this. He’s just like an English teacher.” Uh….yeah. My feeling about Bruce is that he’s one of the few R&R greats I wouldn’t mind having as a next door neighbor. Chuck Berry ? Naw. Elvis ? Naw ? The Beatles ? Maybe… Dylan ? I don’t think so. Bruce ? Yeah, come on over for the barbecue and birthday parties. That’s his charm, but it also keeps him from being quite as transcendentally mysterious and powerful as some of the others.
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:50 pm
(I’m assuming this thread is pretty dead so this entirely OT, work-avoiding conversation isn’t a problem.)
I wasn’t going to mention the VH 1 show, but again, I was like your wife…just enthralled. I taped the thing, and made my 19-year old sit down and listen to a replay of Bruce doing “Thunder Road,†on the piano at the end of the broadcast. After it was finished, I turned all misty-eyed to Mr. Kid, and blathered something hopelessly sentimental about there not being a more beautiful song in all of rock and roll. (More important, yes, of course, but more beautiful? Right then I thought not.)
My son just looked at me and said, very, very kindly, as one might to an overly enthusiastic but somewhat addled child, “It’s your thing, mom. It’s not mine.â€
May 2nd, 2005 at 5:07 pm
rosedog…nice piece…
Which reminds me of…uh…Merle Haggard.
Have you ever heard Merle’s song “Immigrant” ?
It’s pretty amazing. Came out in the ’70s and was essentially a naively romanticized but nicely empathetic update of Merle’s own penniless Okie to California farm fields trajectory. The most startling thing about the song is his take on the ugly opportunism of agribusiness.
The Immigrant (rough lyrics)
American ranching consists of a mansion
Where illegal immigrants do much of the labor by hand.
They sneak ‘em thru customs Til time comes to bust em
Then haul ‘em back over the border to their own native land.
With a ragged Sombrero and not much Dinero
They’ll be back again When the Rio Grande’s way down low.
So Border Patroller, Don’t stop the stroller
Cause the Illegal Immigrant is helping America grow.
Viva La Mexico ! Go where they let you go !
And do what you can for the land.
Take home Dinero And buy new Sombrero
And come back again when you can.
What makes a gringo use smart aleck lingo
When you stole this land from the Indian man way back when.
Don’t he remember the big money lender
Who put a lien where his farms once had been.
It’s the almighty “peso” That gives him the say so
To dry up the river Whenever there’s crops to bring in.
Is this a good neighbor That takes all his labor
Then runs him back over the river ’til he’s needed again?
May 2nd, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Wonderful… Never heard it.
And….with this in mind… I just spent the past 10 minutes trying to find the album it’s purported to be on, over at Amazon….so I could play at least a clip of the thing… No luck. But I’ll keep an eye out.
Thanks, Reg.
May 3rd, 2005 at 7:23 am
rosedog, that was a nice reponse and much better than my whipped out and unedited note that wasn’t fine-tuned for more civility.
Regarding journalism and ethics, I can see how it is brought up in classes. Most accounting classes had similar lessons in the audit and tax classes. However, a profession continues to re-enforce those ideas long after you’ve left school, it has well-thought through standards and doesn’t allow one set for one company and a different set for another, it provides more analysis than teachers who mention it as an aside or merely an addition to the topic, and it has a review committee to review and penalize ethics violations. Right now, journalistic ethics are whatever someone wants them to be–just like morals. That provides no guidance or controls and results, eventually, in the breakdown of ethics.
Regarding moms, I know you have to be right about the tug of giving children to a care provider so that a job can be maintained. That is one of the trade-offs and thoughts that should be given consideration before starting a family. I will say that it should be up to the individual employers to provide those benefits, if they can afford them and choose to do so. It is an improper use of power for government to force them to do that.
Numbers of gatherings favaorable to the press are very frequently reported by saying, “According to the organizers, “x” number of people participated.” That makes it look as if those numbers are real, when the reporter knows full well that they are not.
What’s next? Oh, yeah…guns. We’re not going to agree on this. Maybe our experiences are just too different. However, I believe that evil people will continue to do evil and their tools to commit those wrongs, be it guns or not, will always be available to them. The greater danger, to me, is having an unarmed citizenry at the mercy of criminals and some governments.
This is late, so off to the next topic.
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:42 am
Sorry Charlie you still don’t know one whit what you’re talking about and prove time and again.
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:20 am
Woody…. Personally, I’ve gotten a lot less hard core on the gun issue….and a lot more understanding of where the gun-rights folks are coming from. (Frankly, what I perceive as the scarily poor behavior regarding civil liberties on the part of the Bush administration has gotten me there. I’m beginning to feel those nut cases in the hills of Idaho and Montana worried about black helicopters are, in fact, my natural allies—which I don’t pretend for a moment is healthy, but there you have it.)
On the other hand, I’ve seen so, so much grief because guns were readily available—that it leaves me feeling entirely schizophrenic on the issue. (That gun piece I linked to is representative of those emotions.)
BTW, like you, I don’t think gov’t should make employers be good community members. But I wish more of ‘em would realize on their collective own that it’d be in everybody’s best interest.
On the other hand, I’ve seen so much grief because guns were readily available—that it leaves me feeling entirely schitzophrenic. (That gun piece I linked to is represenative of those emotions.)
And, like you, I don’t think gov’t should make employers be good community members. But I wish more of ‘em would realize on thier own that it’d be in everybody’s best interest.
May 3rd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
The Second Amendment – interpreted as an individual right – is an anachronism that we’ve got to live with. Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that it makes sense to demand a “right” for private citizens to personally possess the kinds of arms necessary to make up an effective militia. Automatic weapons, cop-killer bullets, artillery ? Even most NRA members aren’t that crazy. Well, maybe they are when it comes to some of those bullets. So once the line is drawn, the question is where and by whom. I think that Howard Dean is on the right track in recognizing that gun control should be subject to regional diversity beyond the basics of outlawing automatic weapons, superbullets, artillery and a registration and waiting period with ownership by felons illegal, all of which should be federally mandated as a matter of common sense. I’d be tempted to put carrying handguns in public on that list, but it would only stir up the crazies and…well…who needs more Texans anyway ? Actually, maybe we should mandate federally that if one carries a handgun, a bottle of whiskey should be in your other hand. Just to up the ante…
I personally like guns…but mostly western-style guns…I think the semi-autos are for geeks and freaks with some size and performance issues…but I grew up in a semi-rural area and every kid I knew got rifle training beginning in Boy Scouts. It’s way different in the Big City.
I was stopped at a stop sign in West Oakland some years back and heard shots. It’s funny, because it was a couple of days before the 4th of July and first thought it was fire crackers. But the sharp sound kept repeating and I knew someone was firing nearby. A car spun around the corner, thankfully headed in the opposite direction, and two clowns on foot were chasing after it. They had what looked like pretty high-tech handguns. They were running after the car and firing wildly. A school was on one corner, a church on another and a bus stop on a third. It was mid-afternoon. Nobody got hurt, but two things struck me. One was that I’d seen one of the Die Hard movies a few days before, and the shooting in those movies seemed more real, which was scary because I knew I’d been mindfucked by the media. The other was that I realized that, based on my Boy Scout training and youthful sharpshooting, I could have taken out the car. These guys were so spastic with their guns, they didn’t have a clue. It was like watching a 12-year old try do drive a car. That was also scary, because it meant they were less likely to kill each other (bad) than some bystander who had nothing to do with their bullshit (much worse).
The biggest flaw in the argument of gun control advocates is that there has been miniscule enforcement of existing gun laws regarding felons, etc, and it’s true that, since the barn door is as wide open as it is and has been for centuries, laws that limit ownership by law-abiding citizens aren’t likely to have much more than a marginal affect on criminals. The biggest flaw in the argument of pro-gun advocates is that I don’t believe the statistics they cite of folks who’ve thwarted criminals with their guns. My mother-in-law (a hardcore liberal Democrat, incidentally) sleeps with a handgun by her bed and usually puts one in her bra when she goes out. I’m not kidding. If you asked her if she’d thwarted criminals, she’d tell you “Of course!” and recount tales of lurkers around her house, etc. My bet is that a huge percentage of the polling statistics from gunowners includes these self-induced urban (and rural) legends. Also, the best home protection is a shotgun. Indisputable…my grandfather taught me that, and he knew. (My wife’s grandfather apparently used to wield his shotgun in his front yard in West Oakland when he saw pimps beating their women. Those old country-bred codgers didn’t play and didn’t shirk from their civic duties.)
May 3rd, 2005 at 3:06 pm
All extremely well said, Reg. Sums up my view far better than I could. (Although I kinda like the pistol in the bra thing. Regrettably, however, I’m afraid it isn’t a strategy I’m ever destined to embrace—due in part to the politics of the issue, but mostly due to….um…. pulchritudinous limitations.)
May 3rd, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Well you know what they say; “Happiness is a warm gun.”
May 3rd, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Yeah, Mark, but the problem is, for me, the gun might be bigger than….
…..Oh never mind.
May 3rd, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Marc: “Now more than ever the public needs news media that are serious, thoughtful and analytical, not compliant suckers for the wound-up partisans and pandering politicians who are increasingly likely to inflame or obfuscate the issue with goofball dog-and-pony shows.”
Well said. So is it true that you have agreed to be part of the editorial board of the right-wing bloggers’ new “news organization” project, as Roger Simon said on his blog? Because that project sounds a lot more like the compliant suckers problem than the thoughtful and analytical solution.
May 3rd, 2005 at 7:04 pm
But on the up side less chance for the safety to go off accidentally. That could be really bad.
As to Nell’s point. I didn’t get the idea Roger wanted me in his fold. I’m afraid I don’t make $100,000 grans which I’m told is the median income there. It’s a class thing as always.
May 7th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
Im an AMERICAN and happen to have pride in my new country. How can you call anything (weather it was one person or onethousand people)that an AMERICAN who would protect the U.S. on their own time a failure? What have you done? Even I know what it means to be an AMERICAN. I did it legal and appreciate MY Constitutional freedom. I guess you are free to act like your views are the correct views and that everyone should do what he wants and all the world can move in to my new country. I guess soon AMERICANS will have to let illegals live in their house.
As a LEGAL IMMIGRANT I got away from a bad life and now that bad life is beeing let into this country by the millions. If done legally they would leve it behind as I did.
There are many great reasons for LEGAL immigration and no good comes from turning a blind eye to illegal immigration.
ROSEDOG good article!
I know that to give my opinion on this site is a waste because most of you dont want to hear it and wont see any thing in any way but your way. Though, give a thought to what it takes to be an AMERICAN. Is it a special thing or is it a step over a line.
May 7th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Wish to call attention to the third from last paragraph of your very slanted article. Actully the last sentence should have read, “Make the crossing to wind up as our maids, nannies, gardeners, gang members, robbers, muggers, rapists, murders and prison residents.”