Currently Browsing: The Media
May 26, 2016
Looks like Katie Couric was caught using Daily Show tactics to make gun rights advocates look like clueless slobs.
“Katie Couric asked a key question during an interview of some members of our organization,” he said. “She then intentionally removed their answers and spliced in nine seconds of some prior video of our members sitting quietly and not responding. Viewers are left with the misunderstanding that the members had no answer to her question.”
I’m shocked! PJ Media has more to say about it here, noting:
The documentary’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, said in a statement: “I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.” Of course not.
Yeah, I don’t believe that for a minute. Couric is no better than Dan Rather or Brian Williams. There is no integrity left in journalism anymore. The fact that they did this begs the question of how often they do this to others?
May 21, 2016
Usually when a reporter wants to spin against the NRA and its millions of grassroots members, it’s a lot more subtle than outright fabrication of things that did not happen where cameras and thousands of people are present. I mean, let’s face it, that’s just bold to think you won’t get caught in that kind of lie.
However, that’s what Louisville Business First‘s Baylee Pulliam tried to pull off in her Twitter coverage of the NRA Annual Meeting.
Pulliam tried to claim that NRA was dubbing dog noises over video of Hillary.
Except they didn’t. It’s a complete lie that NRA dubbed barking noises over Hillary. NRA simply played the video of Hillary herself barking like a dog.
Even though I was in the law seminar during the political event, I checked with multiple people there, and I watched the video which NRA News helpfully streams live and posts after the event.
But don’t let that stop the narrative that must be told that NRA and its members hate women. No, Pulliam needs to help push a narrative, so false accusations of dubbing must fly around social media.
Since at least one person has called her out, Pulliam tried to delete her tweet. But was there any kind of correction or apology posted? Nope.
Acknowledging such an accusation means it gets documented that the reporter doesn’t actually keep up with current events and somehow missed the news of Hillary barking, doesn’t do research before throwing out claims against innocent organizations, or she really is simply willing to unfairly accuse NRA of actions they did not take until someone publicly calls her out. With more than 20,000 videos on YouTube and nearly 500,000 Google links when searching “Hillary Clinton barking,” I find it doubtful that someone covering political events would miss that kind of news. It’s certainly possible that she just throws out accusations and doesn’t do research before doing so, but that seems a little reckless for a reporter at a business-focused media outlet. Sadly, that leaves the third option as a very real possibility.
May 19, 2016
It’s a yearly tradition: before NRA descends on any city, at least one of that city’s media outlets writes something insulting or degrading about NRA and/or it’s members. I guess it’s no surprise that the Louisville alt-weekly has to take a pot shot, who reminds our 70,000, most of which have never done anything worse than a traffic offense, that “guns keep the undertaker busy.” Not mine, toots. Of course, she’s not alone, the editor of the rag, who welcomes us with “Dear National Rifle Association: Really wish you’d just go away. Not just leave town. Disappear. Like evaporate.” How kind of you, sir. I’m bowled over by the open mindedness on display at the Louisville Eccentric Observer, who seem pretty conformist to me.
A local Louisville TV station informs the public that Mom’s Demand Action is planning to show Katie Couric’s vapid documentary “Under the Gun” at Spalding University. I guess they’ve given up on protests, since they never got much coverage, and they were usually pretty pathetically attended. That’s kind of disappointing. I like how the station doesn’t even get their name right, calling them “Mom’s Who Demand Action.” That sounds even more like a porno flick than their actual name, which still sounds pretty much like a porno flick.
UPDATE: Both Media Matters and RawStory smear Bob Owens, since TownHall.com is sponsoring the Leadership Forum this year.
May 9, 2016
At least when they are applied to them:
The law enforcement agency—whose once-pristine reputation has been tarnished in recent years by scandal, congressional investigations and, more to the point, aggressive investigative reporting—is for the first time ever running background checks on thousands of journalists who want to attend this summer’s Republican and Democratic Party nominating conventions.
Sucks to be treated like a criminal so you can exercise your constitutional rights doesn’t it? Gee, what other group of people has to endure that regularly that you sycophants like to malign when your masters tell you to? I find myself fresh out of sympathy.
Apr 4, 2016
As if we didn’t have enough steaming piles of excrement coming from the media today, the WaPo has to take today’s cake:
Alexandra Filindra and Noah J. Kaplan found that whites were significantly less likely to support gun control measures when they had recently looked at pictures of black people, than when they had looked at pictures of white people.
Are you effin’ kidding me? This is really such excrement, I can only respond with this dank meme:
Feb 18, 2016
People often rightly complain that these fact check sites are partisan hack jobs, and much of the time I think that accusation carries some weight. But much of the time it reeks of laziness, combined with not really wanting to take the time to understand the issue at hand in any detail.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe stated that Virginia law bars private sellers from getting background checks.
“Under Virginia law, if you are a non-federally licensed dealer, you cannot get a background check even if you want one. We changed that law.”
That is completely accurate, and a correct understanding of how the system works now. But that doesn’t stop Politifact from rating it “mostly false,” since you can pay an FFL to process the transfer. Way to miss the point, boneheads.
McAuliffe’s statement was completely accurate. Under the new law the State Police can run a person for free without having to have an FFL process the firearm into his inventory, and then process it out again, with all the accompanying forms and NICS checks. If a person at a gun show wants to check out a prospective buyer in a private transfer, he can go over to the Virginia State Police and ask for the check on the buyer.
Politifact is also not considering that the $25 to $35 dollar price dealers in Virginia will process private transfers for will go up if it’s mandated. That’s a bargain basement price around these parts, where transfers are mandated to go through FFLs for handguns. The cheapest FFL I could find around here that would do a transfer charged $35 bucks for it. Some shops charge as much as $50 bucks.
We’ve often argued that it would be preferable if there were a system where a person could run a check on themselves and then present it to a potential seller, who could then verify the certificate is genuine. There are ways to do this. Tom Coburn essentially offered that kind of system after Sandy Hook and Schumer rejected it. McAuliffe appears to have listened. Too bad Politifact didn’t.
Dec 10, 2015
This one evidently caused by an Israeli student. And ending with yet another Police Praise PSH. (Hey, maybe we need another tag, Sebastian?) This should be interesting to watch unfold. That had to have annoyed a lot of commuters, too; US 9 is a major artery for the area, as is NJ 18.
No pictures yet – if I come across one I’ll update. Wonder if he’ll be invited to the White House?
Dec 8, 2015
It’s always amazed me how often the gun control folks fail because they simply can’t help themselves from going a bridge too far. I can speak anecdotally that not many left-leaning folks have been willing to stand up and enthusiastically get behind the Terror Watch List proposal. But in this case, we can stop just speaking anecdotally, and note that the LA Times thinks the proposal is a bad one. That was followed up by Slate.
I’ve been of the opinion that the entire Bush-era “no fly” list as applied to flying is and ought to be ruled completely unconstitutional. Neither the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights, nor the “Privileges or Immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment does much for us these days, but it has been recognized to protect the rights of citizens to travel the country unimpeded. It’s good to see there are still some traditional liberals out there who find the use of secret government lists to restrict the liberties of citizens distasteful.
Via Glenn Reynolds, who notes: “To be fair, the whole thing was just intended as a distraction from Obama’s many national security failures, not as a serious proposal.”
When Democrats would rather talk about gun control, an issue that they not long ago regarded as poison, how bad have things really gotten for them?
Nov 20, 2015
I don’t see how this “case of mistaken identity” had a positive outcome, other than no-one was harmed by the police responding to a bogus “Man With Gun” call. And then the cops double down and encourage people to make bogus calls. Topped off by the Lancaster Safety Coalition “review[ing] footage” and “see[ing] how the tripod could be mistaken for a gun at first glance.” Mrs Grundy in the 21st Century?
Nov 16, 2015
A few figures on the right politicized the terrorist attack in Paris pretty much while it was happening. I might agree with the sentiments expressed, that people are generally made safer by having a well-armed population who are well-trained (dare I say well-regulated?) in the use of those arms. But I agree that jumping right in with fodder intended for domestic political audiences is distasteful. But my question for the folks arguing this: is it wrong when Obama jumps in with political rhetoric immediately following mass shootings? Is it wrong when gun control advocates immediately start pushing their policies in the media immediately in the wake of mass shootings? If you say it’s wrong for Newt Gingrich to do it, but fine for Barack Obama, then you have a double standard, and pardon me if I don’t then start thinking your an unthinking partisan. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having the policy discussion. That will inevitably come. But I do think it’s the decent thing to do to tame the rhetoric until people have had a chance to process what happened. At least give it a few days.
And notice, in the linked article, the Washington Post laments politicizing the attacks, and then turns around and belches out several anti-gun talking points, like they couldn’t help themselves, and like that itself is not controversial or political. So who’re really the assholes here? You’d almost think for as narcissistic as some in the media are, they might look in the mirror now and then.