The Future of News


Boy, if you think the media is anti-gun now, it’s probably time to just turn it all off and cut off the subscriptions.

This article on the gun control debate in a New York City high school is recognized as one of the “best” pieces of student journalism in the entire region.

The most effort the team of three students made to get a remotely opposing opinion was to talk to a social studies teacher who acknowledged that there’s a legal right to own a handgun, only in the home for self-defense there. He makes it very clear that no other guns and purposes should be allowed, “just a pistol to defend the home.”

I get that these are just high school kids, but it is a little disturbing that they don’t even make an effort to try and present an alternative position or outline why someone might not agree with the vast majority of the proposals that other students and public school employees suggest. The fact that this lack of any real effort to present even an argument from the opposition is not only printed in a student paper, but actually awarded a prize for high school reporting is disturbing to me. It’s like the major mainstream media outlets are admitting that it’s not even worth it to pretend they aren’t just partisan hacks.

14 thoughts on “The Future of News”

    1. Interesting term. I like to think of the entire built up region from Baltimore up through New York and Boston as ‘Old America’. Those people are determined to drag the rest of the nation down with them.

  1. Of course this was in Phx, AZ, but in 1973 (Junior in HS) I won the District Championship in Oratory (8 minute prepared speech) with a speech DEFENDING the 2A (I later bombed with it in the State finals due to nerves I guess).

    Even then though I had very vocal opposition from teamates etc as to the validity of the 2A and the efficacy of gun ownership in general.

    It was good speech, wish I had a copy of it. The first of 4 times I’ve used the 2A as a subject in school (term papers etc).

    1. “Wish I had a copy of it.”

      I know the feeling. I won multiple awards in high school giving “public address” to the true story (condensed in a 60s Readers’ Digest article) entitled “To My Fallen Son.” It expressed a father’s emotional struggle with his Marine Corps son’s death in a Vietnam firefight where he heroically rallied his badly outnumbered men to an astounding victory, saving many lives. I had no speaking talent; the story itself won the awards. It was just that powerful and moving. Today, I fear, I might be laughed off the podium. Wish I could find it – or the original article. Can’t remember the author/father’s name. Google comes up empty. Sigh.

  2. “I feel that there are loopholes people use to buy and sell guns,” said Ms. Dasch

    Typical of the liberal argument: I feel, therefore it’s true….

    A real journalist would have dug a bit deeper into the ‘loophole’ and the numbers surrounding it, and the net results, but then that would involve work (and it would have ruined their argument)!

    1. A real journalist would still be restrained by their word count and knowledge base.

      This isn’t a good example to illustrate bias. Reporters aren’t being biased by simply reporting what a person says in response to a question. The story wasn’t about the exact nature of buying guns, it was a report of what local opinions were on the subject facing Congressional debate.

      Where I see bias is in the fact that they don’t appear to make any effort to actually find an opposing opinion. If they couldn’t find it in the people they spoke to, they could have contacted the state rifle association for comment or help in connecting to local groups of gun owners. If they faced time constraints in tracking someone down, then they could have included a sentence like, “Local opponents to gun control bills could not be reached by press time.” That would have highlighted an effort to find an opposing opinion. The fact that they didn’t even appear to think about doing that represents bias through laziness.

      UPDATE: I should add that I recognize high school kids will make mistakes like the ones I mentioned above. It happens. They are students and still learning. However, the fact that such laziness is applauded and given a wider audience by the current media leaders is the real problem. They are applauding and promoting kids who clearly don’t understand how to write a balanced story in hopes of shifting the expectations even more towards partisan ends.

      1. Reporters aren’t being biased by simply reporting what a person says in response to a question.

        No, their bias comes out in not turning the idiotic answers into punchlines. Treating mouth-breathing idiocy like it’s the wisdom of Solomon is what’s gotten us into the mess we’re in.

  3. Murrow sophomore Bishoy Salem believes that every mentally stable person should be entitled to possess a firearm.

    “The Second Amendment clearly allows us to bear arms,” said Salem. “If police have guns, why can’t we? Cops are human; they will make mistakes with their guns just like anyone else.”

    Seems like a decent pro-rights position. The article was about the debate going on in the school over the issue. All the anti-rights opinions came from people at the school. It wouldn’t have made sense to solicit opinions outside the school just to create an artificial balance.

    1. Yeah, I caught that too. Honestly, as bad as this story was i’ve seen plenty that were much much worse. At least this story wasn’t your typical, press release from an anti-gun organization presented as original reporting.

  4. OK, the reporter (or editor) went nuts by saying pro-2A people are against ALL gun control.

    Otherwise it is not as bad as many others I have seen. Oh sure, the teacher who thinks everybody should to have a pistol, but only at home, well I do not agree – but most “gun control” proponents want to ban ALL firearms: so perhaps he is educable.

    And note there is nothing actually the debate itself, other than there was one. I wonder if that is because the pro-2A arguments won?

    1. Right now I see the anti-gun groups working very hard to sell two memes to the American public. The first meme is the demonization of the NRA and pro-gun people, prime example is the accusation that ‘pro-2A people are against ALL gun control’. The anti-gun people are working right now harder at demonizing us rather than demonizing guns.

      The second meme is deaths of children. And I mean real children as opposed to teenage gang-bangers. They have always worked that meme but every since Newton, because of how close to victory they felt from exploiting that incident, they have redoubled their efforts. For example there is a writer at who has focused on accidental deaths of children to motivate efforts for expanded gun-control.

  5. It’s has gotten so damn lout inside the echo chamber that people can’t hear themselves think.

Comments are closed.