Printable View
Im watching this show now. Im scared at the same time excited.
At this point Im unsure if this show is biased for or against guns.
Let us know your thoughts on this episode.
Is this another left wing loony bin anti-gun rights propaganda show?
or
Is this aimed to show the reality of the positives of gun ownership in America?
National Geographic? I'd be willing to bet it's as biased as if the New York Times made it. They're pretty Leftie, any more. :tired:
Believe it or not..
As I watch this the first 20 mins were very directed in favor of showing how responsible gun owners prove through interviews that it is favorible to own a weapon.
There were also cases of self defense with firearms in a good way.
There was alot of bias against guns also.
Edited .. somewhat balanced
You wasted ALL that time watching and I could have just told you what the focus was going to be...:twak:
I know I saw this a while back... I seem to recall it was fairly balanced, but I can't remember everything about it...
The thing I DO specifically recall...? The gangbanger who carried a gun and said, "I'd rather be caught with it, than caught without it..."
I can relate...
They had a special Explorer program about guns in America.
Typical one sided reporting. The showed a philly cop that was shot in the face by a shotgun. They also showed a greek imigrant now US citizen that has a large collection of guns. His wife and daughters shoot with him. They also showed a young mother whose husband grabbed a shotgun out of the closet when someone kicked in the door of the the house.
The mother said she as he was getting the gun, "What would I do if something happens to him? I have no way of defending the children."
They did not report the outcome of the break in, if the intruder fled at teh sound of the alarm, or if the husband chased him off, you couldn't even tell if the husband was still alive! They then showed the mother going to a gun show (by herself) to look into purchasing a gun. She also went to a range and took a gun safety course and tried several different guns. She was actually a very good shot.
They mentioned the number of states with CC laws and castle doctrin laws, but made no mention of the reduction in violent crimes that usually occurs when gun laws are relaxed.
The only statistics they did mention was the number of children shot by guns in the home and the number of suicides involving guns. I think they said that half the number of people killed in the US were suicides. This can't be right!
They also showed a young street banger that was shot in the neck by his "Friend" that was carelessly waving a gun around.
Not wasted so to say.. just entertained. It was that or watching the "Shamwow Slapchop Guy" eeek.Quote:
Originally Posted by retsupt99
I will have to say now that looking back it was fairly balanced but the timing and placement of certain information is what could mislead someone into thinking that ultimately guns are bad.
Sounds like it could have been worse: Imagine a replay of Micheal Moore's animated portion of "Bowling for Columbine" when he says that the NRA was created by the KKK and Samuel Colt was a genocidal maniac. They could have easily went that route so in their own minds they were probably being extremely 'giving' to the 'gun community'.
This was originally featured several months ago.
Run a search on the programs name 'Guns in America' as there is a big thread on same.
- Janq
They are just trying to get in the good graces of the Obama administration. It was a one sided program. That was just one of several one sided gun documentaries that aired all in the same week on different stations. The left took their shot and missed by a mile.
The only satisfactory way to register my objection to the National Geographic is financial. I don't support media that is biased and pretends otherwise. I don't have a problem with media that is biased and says so. It is the intellectually dishonest that draw my ire.
For instance, how about this for a lead in, "The National Geographic is anti-gun. The following story contains the information we believe supports our position. Counter arguments or facts that do not support our position can be found from other sources." Don't think I will ever see it.
National Geographic magazine did a hit piece on Steelville, MO. five or six years ago. Steelville is a nice small town with easy access to excellent hunting, fishing and canoe rivers. I don't live there, but am familiar with the place and some of the people. The magazine article really looked down on the community and the local gun club. By extension, they were looking down at all of rural America.
Starting as a child, I had been getting National Geographic for fifty years. Some places I lived, I would get three or four issues at a time because of the poor mail service. I canceled my subscription over the Steelville story and wrote them why. Since I had been getting the magazine for so long and had lived in several remote areas in the world that they had written about, I was able to point out how well they portrayed the natives of so and so while glossing over the terrible things about those societies. After a few examples, I hit them with my point.
When it came to Steelville - rural, Christian, gun, identity politics tripped their east coast elitist snob switch. I could see a slime author at a lesser publication slipping something into print, but National Geographic content is painstakingly chosen and very carefully edited. My conclusion is the NatGeo staff holds the view of the arrogant jerk that trashed Steelville. They think some backward incest ridden scum in the third world are more noble than the majority of rural Americans.
I haven't read them for a while, but I'll bet National Geographic heavily promotes every fringe agenda currently popular with the eastern elite and only has just enough articles grounded in science or nature to keep up the facade. And those science articles are selected to highlight some radical agenda or other favored social issue. Another grand old publication lost to the political agenda of elitist snobs.
Fifteen years or so ago I canceled my subscription to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. We are just on the edge of their distribution area. In their case, someone called and asked me why. When I discussed subtle slanting of news articles with certain adjectives in certain situations and lack of news on certain topics, she acted like it wasn't possible. They had the "highest standards of journalism" according to her. She was a very nice lady, and I truly believe she was sincere. That is when I started to realize some of these people were really unable to discern the bias in their own organizations. Of course, the editorial page was notoriously one sided. That didn't bother me, but the slant to the news was odious.
My mother still gets the Post. These days, that is their demographic, 86 years old and up. The paper is down to four columns and a greatly reduced number of pages. I think, had they reported unvarnished news without slant and favoring no segment of society, they would still be viable. The editorial page could be rabid communist for all I care if the news was factual and everyone needing to be in the news was there. Both liberal and conservative. Both Democrat and Republican. All public government escapades. All fools regardless of faith, race, creed, gender etc. However, they didn't. Now they are on the way out. And the amazing thing, as they clean out their desks, they say, "O the internet. If it hadn't been for the internet, none of this would have happened." When I canceled, I was only able to use file retrieving software at work on the internet. Even Mosaic was not yet in use. So in my case, the internet had nothing to do with it.
When you read newspapers from a hundred plus years ago, which I do as a part of researching my ancestors, you find wildly biased editorials, but generally factual news. Also, there were competing papers that insured all kinds of topics were available to the public. That kept them all more honest. Some papers were openly for one political party or the other, or one side of an issue or the other. They pulled no punches. They didn't try to hide their bias. That may have been the best time for the media.
Today, some media pretend that news bias doesn't exist. Anyone calling them out is given a pejorative label. At least the right wing blowhards admit they are promoting a conservative agenda. It is high time all media drop the pretense of impartiality and admit they promote certain ideas if that is the case. Why try to ignore the obvious. If you are a flaming left wing anti-gun media outlet, admit it. I for one would appreciate it and respect the media more.
PS - Please excuse my pejorative labels. :eviltongue: