Hey Tim, this is not directed at you in a negative way whatsoever... But I
did get a kick out of the phrase "perception of antigun bias by the media"... I was told one time that a persons "perception" is their reality. From my viewpoint, I don't just perceive an antigun bias by the media - I realize there is an antigun bias by the media!
I just love it when the media shows a picture of a AR-15 and proceeds to call it an AK-47. (We all know that the AK-47 bears a more "gang-related", and therefore more frightening, reputation.) Or how about when they refer to a "fully automatic AR-15"? There is another attempt to paint a semi-automatic rifle in a bad light. (I have seen this happen numerous times, even though the police report states that it was nothing more than a standard AR-15. Yes, such a full-auto weapon did exist, back in the early 1960's when DARPA was testing the Armalite AR-15 that was to become the issue M-16, but I have some serious doubts as to the possbilities that one of those particular rifles [since those weapons went to SE Asia for testing] has ever ending up on the street. And yes, there were a few issued full-auto AR-15's that were issued in the early days - but again, I doubt any of those are out on the street.) Think about all of the phrases that get used incorrectly (on purpose or out of ignorance) by the media: "automatic pistol" instead of the correct "semi-automatic pistol"; "automatic rifle" instead of the correct "semi-automatic rifle"; "sawed-off shotgun" as opposed to the correct "shotgun with a (completely legal) 18 inch barrel". If any of the rest of their journalist work was this sloppy regarding another subject matter, say cancer or school lunch programs, the editors and producers would be putting reporters on written notice... But it is considered "okay" in the media to make these kinds of errors because it promotes their anti-gun agenda... Years ago, when you could use the words "integrity" and "media" in the same sentence (and not choke back a laugh) the method was: 1) get story; 2) verify; 3) verify; 4)verify again if it is a really big story and could cost the paper/station lots of money for an error; 5) then report. Now, it is 1) get story; 2) ask "will it sell ads?"; 3) will the producer/editor let it be televised/printed?; 4) ask "will it help my career?"; 5) ask "is it plausible?" and if all answers are yes, 6) run the story.
One of the greatest headlines to ever reveal the fact that newspapers are now just opinion magazines came from the New York Times on September 15, 2004, regarding the Air Force Memos referring to President Bush:
"Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says" Really...
That WAS their headline on page 1... And the same goes on all over the country in even the small town papers that are owned by either liberal loving corporations or liberal individuals.
Didn't mean to go on so long about this on your "Meeting Date" thread. I just feel rather strongly about it. If it wasn't on the same night as the Nashville Chapter's meeting, I'd be tempted to drive over and attend your meeting myself, just to rake the muck - and I'm a
really good muck-raker!
HAVE A GREAT DAY!
-Mike