If you’re like many gun owners, you feel like the mainstream media has a strong anti-gun bias. Of course, that is because they really do have a strong anti-gun bias.
But maybe you’re wondering why they feel like they are justified in reporting gun news with such a blatant and dishonest slant. Sadly, at least part of the reason is because academics living in ivory towers (instead of the real world) tell the mainstream media what to think or at least tell them that they are okay in thinking things which simply aren’t true.
Want an example of this kind of disgusting “academic” bias? Well, since you asked, here you go: Whitney Tipton writes,
Journalists can be too balanced when covering gun research and shouldn’t always ask for input from pro-gun groups like the NRA, a Johns Hopkins professor said, according to an article Monday.
“6 tips for reporting on gun policy and gun violence” was published Monday by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, and is based on an interview with Jon Vernick, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
The guideline aims to give pointers to journalists covering the gun beat and advised that “If you’re reporting the facts of an evidence-based study, don’t try to ‘balance’ the coverage with an opposing opinion.”
In his sixth tip, labeled “Avoid False Equivalence,” Vernick stated:
“I think journalists actually do a good job already of balancing — maybe too good a job, depending on your perspective.”
“And so when I will do a research study and the studies get coverage, I sometimes wonder if it’s necessary to have a non-researcher from the NRA or another group respond,” Vernick said.
“At least in my experience, journalists bend over backward to give organizations like the NRA or other gun-owning or opposition groups a chance to comment, sometimes on things that they don’t know very much about,” he said.
Vernick told The Daily Caller News Foundation Tuesday he thinks “balance is important in all reporting. And I certainly believe that the NRA and other pro-gun groups should have the ability to make their positions on policy matters known.”
Vernick further clarified his remarks: “The point I was trying to make – perhaps not entirely clearly – is that when a research study is being reported on, the ‘balance’ should come from an individual or group with expertise in judging the quality of that research – not simply a group that is unhappy with the finding.”
NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen responded to Vernick’s comments, telling TheDCNF that “the NRA employs PhDs and Second Amendment legal experts from some of the nation’s top universities.”
“For Mr. Vernick, who works for an institution that is literally bought and paid for by gun control billionaire Michael Bloomberg and who himself lacks a PhD, to question the NRA’s ability to analyze research claims is absurd. It’s not surprising he is advising journalists to produce one-sided reporting on the issue of gun control.”
When asked if journalists should contact qualified research staff at pro-gun groups like the NRA, Vernick agreed. “If the NRA has staff trained in research methods and analysis, then (in my view) such a person would indeed be qualified to comment on the quality of a research study.”
Harvard’s Shorenstein Center did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.
Now, think about this guy’s comments. He devalues input into news articles given by the NRA and other pro-gun groups because he assumes that the researchers providing information to pro-gun organizations not given by “qualified” researchers, never mind what the facts actually are.
Of course, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the mainstream media overwhelmingly takes what academics like Vernick say without actually checking the accuracy of the information. Why? Because it fits the narrative that they want to provide.
And it’s because of this bias in both the mainstream media and in academia that we have to be especially diligent to get the truth out about firearms and pro-gun people.
All too few people are aware – nor bother to check historical data themselves – that in the 20th Century more humans were murdered by their own governments than died as a result of military invasion. And this almost without exception followed the criminalization and confiscation of personal firearms from law-abiding citizens. Once the capability of self-defense was eliminated, it has been ridiculously easy to round up dissidents, intellectuals, scout leaders, clergy, business & education leaders, legislators, union stewards, deacons – anyone differing in any way from the government’s approved attitude who might be politically unreliable – and imprison and execute’em.
Why did this article descibe Mr. Vernick as an”academic” when it made a point of stating that he does not hold a Phd.?
Its all about the MONEY. They will say ANYTHING to get some of BLOOMBERGS MONEY.
See? There’s a perfect example of what happens when you get a degree from Bubba’s Bait Shop, Quick Oil Change, Kollege, and Tattoo Parlor. There went $49.95 down the drain.
Vernick was definitely biased and convinced that the NRA, et al, had NO expertise. So, with that bias, he was saying that journalists would NOT be remiss and could, in fact, do a “balanced” piece, without consulting or quoting the NRA or like Org. After being corrected by the NRA (who in fact use PHD and expert science in their research), Vernick changed his tune. BTW, I’d love to hear Vernick’s example of an “evidenced-based study”.
wow,, such ethical advice…..
These people still think GUNS are the cause bad things to happen… But the truth is GUNS in the right hands (with GOD’s HELP) can and do STOP and PROTECT all our lives.
Wow, another moron who is in charge of teaching our children. I can’t wait for “free college” for everyone. Once the government is in control of college education, morons like this will face a reality check. I f the government pays for college for everyone, it will have to be much cheaper. If tuition is cheaper, those who teach will have to take a severe cut in pay, and they will have to actually teach classes, instead of pontificating and having teaching assistants teach their classes for them. Professors could expect to make, maybe 30-40K per year. When Medicine is socialized, Doctors could make 40-50K per year. Anyone who just works for the government in an unskilled job could make minimum wage of $15 per hour. But, with the government in charge of everything, you will have to work 50-60 hours a week to earn enough to buy food and pay for other basic necessities. If food is available, you will have to wait in line to get bread, milk, etc. Bernie Sanders and other Democrats who support socialist programs don’t bother to tell you that part of Socialism. All of you who think Socialism is the cure for all things wrong with America, do some research. Find one country where Socialism has been successful. Those of you who complain about the top one percent of Americans having most of the wealth, just remember that .01% of the top people in Socialist Nations control 95% of the wealth and everyone else has basically nothing. I guess Bernie Sanders believes that he will be in the top .01%. The same goes for Elizabeth Warren, and many other Democratic candidates (of which there are many). Anyone who is favor of Socialism in America should really do a lot of research before they vote for any candidate who promotes a socialist agenda.
Socialism has never worked, it does not work now [research it to find the TRUTH], and it will never work for the general public. It only works for those few that are in charge.
Comments are closed.