Friday, August 05, 2016

Its Not A Conspiracy Theory If They Actually Conspire

 If it seems like the MSM is working for the other side, then you've reached a plausible conclusion. It's also as likely that they aren't working for the other side, they are the other side.

Some years ago NPR's Terry Gross did an interview with an ATFeieio agent regarding the alleged flow of guns across our southern border. I recall it as it affirmed that Ms. Gross was not any sort of journalist. The revenuer mentioned that "90%" of the guns the ATFeieio traced in Mexico originated in the u.S. Ms. Gross said something to the effect of "huh" or "oh my" before asking a completely unrelated query.

An actual journalist would have followed up with questions such as "How many firearms is that? (as 90% of 12 is very different than 90% of 1.2 million), "How many firearms do y'all trace out of all the firearms used in crime in Mexico?" (again, totals matter), "How many were used by violent criminals as opposed to people who made non-violent errors in possessing them? (Mexico's firearms laws are rather strict), "How many firearms were imported legally? (Mexico's government acquires firearms from the u.S. legally, and some of those end up in criminal hands, as soldiers defecting to the cartels don't turn in their equipment when they switch sides).

Any reporter worth his or her salt would have asked some if not all of the above questions. Ms. Gross did not. That's when I knew that this interview was not for the purpose of exploring a story, but advancing a narrative. This occurred before the Gunwalking scandal broke. Putting it all together now, it seems that interview was part of a far reaching effort to give the impression that the u.S. was a problematic source of crime guns in Mexico and that tougher laws were required to relieve this "problem".

NPR has recently been part of another scandal, this time involving the Obama administration buying coverage favorable to its position on the Iran nuclear deal. The over seas equivalent of NPR (the BBC) has been accused, most notably by Peter Sissions, of being nothing more than a propaganda outlet for "climate change" enthusiasts (though that's not by far the only accusation of bias over there). In fact, the BBC has set up education camps courses for its employees who don't tow the line as they're supposed to.

NPR, the BBC and most mainstream media organizations are institutionally biased to the left. This is because most of their employees in all aspects of their respective companies are progressives. Perhaps not progressive ideologically, but progressive culturally, and though the culture and ideology are not exactly;y synonymous, they share enough central tenants to typically arrive at the same conclusion on any given subject.

So it is quite possible that such a cultural bias within mainstream media causes a decidedly leftward tilt on various topics. It cannot be ruled out though that a concerted effort is and perhaps has been in place. Whether this is because a culturally progressive cheerleader was able to push these folks in a direction they were already leaning towards, or whether a culturally and/or ideologically progressive financier bought them off is irrelevant to the conclusion (though following a money trail would be amusing). The press are not, nor ever have been, our pals.

Katie Couric used the word "documentary" to describe her propaganda piece pushing for more gunowner control laws. Her unethical behavior was so blatant, that even NPR called her out on it. She not only edited an interview to give a false impression of the answers, but it seems her and her crew violated federal firearms laws while making the film. David Codrea has helpfully put up a timeline of events related to Couric's film and related scandals.

Was Couric being paid by the anti-gunowner billionaire crusaders, or did she just follow her naturally progressive inclinations? Following the money would be interesting, but either way we arrive at the same conclusion - she can't be trusted as a journalist.

Cosmo has a more open connection to an anti-gunowner financier. They've partnered with Bloomie the Hut to push an anti-gunowner agenda in their magazine. It seems the editor at Cosmo is pals with that nasty little fascist from NYC, though I doubt this is an ideological stretch for her. Dana Loesch was kind enough to take the time to refute Cosmo's anti-gunowner video campaign. Of course when I first learned of that birdcage liner's campaign against gun owners I couldn't help but think (with apologies to Sir Mix-a-Lot) "So Cosmo says no gat, well I ain't down with that".

Sebastian points out that the media have an honesty problem (kinda like the Atlantic Ocean has a dampness problem), this time regarding the questionable story about the descendants of that fellow who thought direct impingement was anything close to a good idea designed the AR-15 claiming he would not approve of it being sold to mere civilians. David Codrea also thinks something is amiss with the story.

A few days ago an operative named Kuntman (of all things) penned a piece describing the brutal recoil and terrifying power of the AR-15 and it's massive .223 Remington cartridge. It has been duly ridiculed for its histrionics and outright wimpiness,(by all means, check out Larry Correia's new column Ask Kuntman!) but also of note is that a gunshop owner provided some damaging quotes. Since the article came out the gunshop owner released a statement saying his words were taking severely out of context.

To quote directly from Kuntzman's scribblings, "Many gun shops turned down our request to fire and discuss the AR-15...But Frank Stelmach of Double Tap Shooting Range and Gun Shop invited me, videographer Michael Sheridan and reporter Adam Shrier to come down."

So this progressive operative with a bi-line searched until he found a gunshop owner gullible enough to talk with him on record. It may be that the gunshop owner did really mean what he was quoted as saying, but is scared of the financial repercussions that come with selling out to the other side. It's just as likely however that he was taken out of context, as this fellow Kuntzman doesn't seem like the most upright fellow in the world. But the lesson here is that when being interviewed by an enemy agent (and it's naive to think that anyone in the mainstream media is not an enemy agent at this point) to always have a means of recording the exchange. If there wouldn't have been a recording of the Couric interview it's likely the allegations of deceptive editing would have been swept under the rug and not garnered much if any attention.

The gunshop owners mistake was talking to the operative in the first place. But if for some known-only-to-Njoror reason a person is compelled to talk with an enemy operative that happens to have a bi-line, record every word said betwixt y'all. Video is even better, but at least get audio.

David Hardy points out another article exaggerating the abilities of the mighty poodle shooter.  It's by Karen Fratti and its comical in its description of the AR-15 and it's .223 Remington cartridge. In an example of the painstaking research that modern journalists have become accustomed to, it seems that miss Fratti's claim that an AR-15 can "take out grizzly bears with two rounds" originates at this thread on the Fieldand website. If you scroll through both pages of that thread you'll find some references to different cartridges, but no mention of the .223 Remington, or the 5.56x45mmNATO, or the AR-15. I'm surprised she didn't stumble across my April Fools Day post from this year as proof that an AR is slightly over powered for Cape Buffalo. I think most folks that read me are aware that I don't think the .223 Remington is adequate for game larger than coyotes, but I know of no one that argues an AR-15 is good black bear medicine, let alone a stellar choice for grizzlies.

In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack there have been a flood, a veritable tsunami of articles from the mainstream media pushing for some form of new gunowner control laws. A lot of this can be attributed to the MSM's progressive leanings, but I suspect that those billionaires for civilian disarmament are pulling strings here and there where they don't see enough effort being put forth.

I don't have the time or the investigative skills to find a money trail and actually follow it. But I strongly suspect that if someone did, they'd find that the anti-gunowner billionaires had their hands, and more importantly their checkbooks, in a lot of the media coverage concerning firearms.

NPR did an All Things Considered segment a little over a month ago which featured two gun owners, one of whom owned a gun store, expressing support for expanding background checks. The reporter identified a Justin Hilton as the owner of Rieg's Gun Shop in Orlando, Florida, and also mentioned that 7 other gun stores in the area were smart enough to not have a chat with an enemy agent declined to be interviewed by NPR. Hilton is in favor of ending private sales of firearms, requiring a background check for all purposes. John Spier is a NRA-certified instructor from California and supports stiffening penalties for firearms law violations and more strict enforcement. "For God's sakes, make them as stiff as you want. I'm never going to commit a gun crime." Spier says. (I wonder if this is the same John Spier who posted this rant on facebook, or was quoted in this interview on Cali's new anti-gunowner laws?)

Unless Mr. Hilton and Mr. Spier convince me somehow that their words were somehow taken out of context I'd never do any business with them. I just don't spend money with folks who think "the wrong people" should be denied an inherent human Right.

I want to remind folks that Hickenlooper spoke with Bloomie the Hut when said nasty little fascist from NYC was in the process of buying Colorado's government to force his gunowner control laws on us. During that same push Biden lobbied a few Colorado legislators to encourage them to vote for Bloomie's gun control package. The situation in Colorado is complex, and here's a piece I penned on it a while back, but from what I gather Colorado was a test for Bloomie's strategy regarding gunwoner control. The recalls forced him to alter that strategy, opting for ballot measures instead of direct purchase of legislators and executives. Indeed, in the upcoming Nevada ballot fight over his gunowner control laws, Bloomie has bought up all the advertising space in the Las Vegas market for the two months prior to the election.

The main points I'm seeing at the moment are A: the press is actively working against us (whether because they've chosen sides in the culture war or because they've been bought out by the other side in the culture war is an interesting yet immaterial question) so they can't be counted on to help us. B: Talk radio, while more pro-gunowner than CNN or the NYT, has its fair share of cultural progressives that are supportive of some forms of gunowner control (Permits or licenses to carry, for example). C: Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc) has a large number of pro-gunonwer users but almost all are run by cultural and ideological progressives who are very anti-gunowner.

So using the MSM to do anything in support of the Right to arms is not likely to produce a good outcome (though it's not impossible) and extreme care must be taken when dealing with progressive operatives with bi-lines. Talk radio has some promise, especially if the anti-gunowner views of a host can be shown to be illogical and/or immoral, but the host has the microphone so it can be an uphill battle. Social media (especially Youtube using ideas similar to these I mentioned a while back) is in my estimation the best way to distribute pro-gunowner messaging, though with the anti-gunowner nature of the owners of most sites this may not last long before they start purging gunowners as best they can (despite Zuckerberg's efforts, there is a resistance). While talk radio can be useful in shoring up support from those already inclined to support us, social media is where converts can be made, and where folks on the fence can be most easily reached through the internetz.

So talking to any reporter should be done reservedly, and with some sort of recording of the entire conversation. But it's folly to think that the press is on our side or even neutral*. To them, we're the enemy. Keep that in mind if the cameras or microphones are ever pointed in your general direction.

(*Yes there are some reporters that are actually neutral and a very few that are genuinely pro gunowner. Likewise there were probably some Chauchats that could reliably fire more than 100 rounds without stoppages, but you wouldn't assume the one someone offered you as you made your way to the trench was one, would ya?)

No comments: