[Tactician]

I may be speaking too soon, but fair and balanced reporting it ain't gonna be.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3141.html

 

[P95Carry]

Almost a foregone conclusion I'd reckon.

Hype? - bound to be.
Misinformation? - probably.
Bigotted? - expect so.
Biased? - yep.
Agenda? - anti of course.

Net value to gun owners? - probably might as well have Brady doing the reporting.

If I am proved wrong I will willingly retract my presently very pessimistic appraisal.

 

[Slider]

Another good reason NOT! to watch anything on ABC!!

 

[ssssthesnake]

i sent the leater they had a contact site on this page urge every one to do so
sent this artical to all of my famaliy they will do the same what a sham

 

[older gunner]

Why am I not surprised. If the UN wants my gun, they can come and get it. I have a few hundred rounds they can start with, one at a time.

 

[Mongo]

This is just the start. The Mainstream Media will hype gun tragedy (Columbine) and gun stories until IANSA releases its "report" which will magically give us the answer to the manufactured questions.

Propagandist drivel seeps out of New York, Washington, LA, and almost every major newspaper and local TV station daily. Always has, always will.

If you don't believe the Media has lied to you, don't be too mad when you find you have been taken for a ride...

 

[obxned]

ABC? Are they still on the air?

 

[ccw9mm]

ABC hires ex Handgun Control Inc employee to report on gun issue

I may be speaking too soon, but fair and balanced reporting it ain't gonna be.

And yet, I'd be willing to bet that if an anti heard that the "expert" to be hired was Massad Ayoob, Gabe Suarez or Clint Smith, similar claims of biased and skewed analysis would be the thing. To lay claim to what's about to happen is, itself, a biased view. Though, I'll admit to thinking along the same lines.

I'm all for a news organization bringing in consultants and analysts to provide their viewpoints. But I'm skeptical when an organization hires a staffer with a singular point of view. In such cases, it's not likely there will be much in the way of balanced coverage of the issue.

About the only unbiased points that can be made: A firearm is a powerful weapon, whether used offensively or defensively; there are few alternatives to a firearm, in certain situations; to disarm good guys and not the bad guys results merely in creating a free-fire zone with enhanced chance of success for criminals. Anything else is merely fog to cloud the issues. ABC's ex-HCI staffer may spin it anyway he/she sees fit; nothing will change these simple points.

 

[TN_Mike]

I'll let you guys in on a little inside TV joke. In the TV business (I work for FOX) each networks call letters are said to stand for something other than what they really mean.
Example:
ABC really means American Broadcasting Company
What we say it means: Absolute Bull Crap
CBS: Columbia Broadcasting System
What we say: Can't Broadcast S***
NBC: National Broadcasting Company
What we say: No Body Cares
FOX: FOX
What we say: I won't even abbreviate here.

ABC can be a very Liberal network and I think they just proved that by hiring this fool. I won't miss any sleep by not watching their slanted reporting from here on out.

 

[bob123]

There has not been anything newsworthy on the "BIG THREE" stations for decades... this decision will only push their viewership numbers down further...

 

[MNBurl]

Did any one expect anything different?

 

[tegemu]

I would expect nothing less. All of the mainstream media is rabidly anti gun and from that perspective it would be stupid to hire a pro gun person.

 

[goawayfarm]

And yet, I'd be willing to bet that if an anti heard that the "expert" to be hired was Massad Ayoob, Gabe Suarez or Clint Smith, similar claims of biased and skewed analysis would be the thing. To lay claim to what's about to happen is, itself, a biased view. Though, I'll admit to thinking along the same lines.

I disagree..........there is NOT two sides to the gun issue.

There is only ONE. Any other view is just plain WRONG & it is due to lack of education or worse yet, just lying about it for their own agenda.

Bias against guns is wrong, not another 'side' of the issue. I think if someone is going to be reporting on a subject, they should be educated in it....ergo......Ayoob, Suarez, Smith, Lott,....etc... would be qualified to speak on the issue. These guys are NOT going to lie or exaggerate like an ANTI will.

Sarah Brady on the other hand, IMO is NOT.

 

[ccw9mm]

I disagree..........there is NOT two sides to the gun issue. There is only ONE. Any other view is just plain WRONG & it is due to lack of education or worse yet, just lying about it for their own agenda.

To any question posed for debate, there are indeed two sides to be considered for the question. In this case: shall civilians have firearms? ... yes or no. That exists irrespective of one's position on the question. Among other things, flat refusal to have a debate causes things to get mired and go in circles, instead focusing on irrational feelings and fears, not facts and reality.

 

[Steve48]

I don't watch the big 3 networks because of the biased coverage.
Steve48

 

[briansmech]

........

this guy dated Monica Lewinski.....

he wrote a book on Jesse Ventura...

and spent such a short time in iraq it doesnt even fit on his timeline, but he likes to throw it into every conversation he has, where he found it too dangerous, and thus, put in for a change of jobs to avoid demonstrating his cowardice...

and this makes him an expert consultant on the gun issue... how?

 

[Echo_Four]

I do not have a problem with them hiring an anti to do their commentating. In fact, I appreciate it. It helps us know what their newest arguments are and learn to counter them. I worry when the only people talking are the lobbyists and only behind closed doors with lawmakers.

Sure, it would be nice if they would hire someone from our side. I'd suggest me, since I'm not opposed to cashing a check with their name on it.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

To any question posed for debate, there are indeed two sides to be considered for the question.

Sure, but as goawayfarm is saying, any other "side" is pretty much composed of nonsense. That's what debates between pro-gunners, who arm themselves with facts, and anti-gunners, who arm themselves with hysteria and claims, always show!

Anyone can come up with some foolish position with no rational basis underlying it and say he has a "side" in the debate. Having a "side" and having a "legitimate side" are often two very different things.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Among other things, flat refusal to have a debate causes things to get mired and go in circles, instead focusing on irrational feelings and fears, not facts and reality.

There is one principal factor that is causing the gun-control debate to go in circles, and it most certainly is NOT any refusal to have a debate, on the part of pro-gunners.

That one factor is the FLAT-OUT REFUSAL TO HAVE AN HONEST DEBATE, ON THE PART OF ANTI-GUNNERS.

It's that simple. They can look at the wording of the 2nd Amendment and claim to see a requirement that anyone who wants to have guns must serve in the National Guard. They claim that the amendment protects the power of the state to arm against the Fedgov.

They pretend that people are safer when they have nothing with which to fight back against aggressors, than when they have guns with which they can fight. They claim that a cellular phone with 911 on the other end of the line is all that is needed to keep people safe from criminal predators.

They will not dignify the correctness of what the Pro-Gun side has to say, no matter how objectively rational it is.

WE are not the ones causing the debate to run in circles. How many times have you personally argued with an anti-gunner and found them maddeningly obtuse, and unwilling to grant that certain things are true and factual and not to be argued?

We can lay the blame for the go-nowhereness of the gun debate squarely at the feet of the antis.