neutral media on gun control?
- Thread starter Tgace
- Start date
In 1970 in college we were taught by our college professors that all media was suspect and possibly controled by CIA ect. and all reporting had to be double triple checked due to unseen agendas such as needing to discredit minority groups, infiltrate Weather underground supposed terro groups.
OP
OP
Tgace
Grandmaster
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com...e-the-gop-to-go-for-the-throat-and-much-more/
When major news outlets (CBS) that are supposed to be non-biased (vs. FOX or MSNBC) have "political directors" telling the president to "destroy" other political parties I find their leaning pretty consistent.
Quick answer...no...they favor banning guns. Expect to see more and more stories against private ownership of guns in the future...the current cover of Time magazine has the clown prince Vice President biden, emporer/mayor bloomberg, and gabby giffords with the title..."Gunfighters." So no, don't expect fair or balanced coverage of this issue and expect hollywood to join in as well.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Brought to you by the Chicago Tribune, who won't let facts get in the way of hysterical support for gun control.
Thats Funny
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-control Interesting article.
The BBC news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21049942
I did laugh at the second comment down though. Not the best argument I've read for having weapons lol.
"I live in the U.S. & believe in the motto Live Free or Die. Taking away my assault rifles would be an assault on my freedom. Anyone who's seen Red Dawn, Independence Day or the Walking Dead knows you need high capacity magazines & assault rifles. While these movies are fictional they're representative of what could happen. Where would those pacifist liberals be then? Begging for my protection"
The BBC news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21049942
I did laugh at the second comment down though. Not the best argument I've read for having weapons lol.
"I live in the U.S. & believe in the motto Live Free or Die. Taking away my assault rifles would be an assault on my freedom. Anyone who's seen Red Dawn, Independence Day or the Walking Dead knows you need high capacity magazines & assault rifles. While these movies are fictional they're representative of what could happen. Where would those pacifist liberals be then? Begging for my protection"
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Who needs to try? Many do a fine job all by themselves. :uhohh:
I'm also interested in your background... it says you live in Canada. Did you relocate from the US? I'm just curious as to what made you such an expert on American history and culture.
Your ancestors weren't laughing when the limped back to England with their tails tucked between their legs. Just sayin'...
But let's get back on topic, shall we?
I don't think I could put it any better than Malcolm X, “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
I'm sure my ancestors indeed weren't laughing, my ancestors never set foot in the UK. I was the first of my family to be born British.
I was laughing in case you didn't realise at the thought of fictional films influencing whether one has weapons or not. Of all the reasons for having weapons fighting aliens and zombies is not the first that comes to mind.
I won't spoil a good meme by reminding our American cousins that they owe their country to the French rather than their militia. Skirmishers don't win battles; cannon and line infantry do. As I've often said, if it wasn't for the fact that the Caribbean was worth more to the government of the day than the America's, history would have been different.
That is not to be taken to mean that I do not agree with the core principle enshrined in the Second Amendment tho' - you don't have to win battles to win a war; you just have to make it too costly for the other side to continue fighting.
That is not to be taken to mean that I do not agree with the core principle enshrined in the Second Amendment tho' - you don't have to win battles to win a war; you just have to make it too costly for the other side to continue fighting.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Not denying the French assist... I wrote a report on the Marquis de Lafayette in 6th grade and named my first cat "Lafayette". But to say we owe more to the French than our own coutryman? I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.
Not as far-fetched as you might think. As CDC director, Dr Ali Khan notes, "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack."
As my good ole' Drill Instructor used to say... "Remember your P's! Proper Preparation Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance."
Isn't this thread supposed to be about the media?
The 4th Estate used to be an entity entrusted with protecting the People by keeping them informed of what the government was up to... not so any more. It's pretty much become the Department of Propaganda. Geobels would be proud.
No need to worry about disagreeing on historical matters, CC.
I sometimes get on my high horse and pontificate about I used to be a historian so I know what I'm on about, which is a naughty thing to do and I try to avoid now I am older and a bit wiser about the traps such conceited thinking gets you into. For there is no denying it, there is always more than one way to read the 'facts' and tell the story :nods:.
As you say, speaking of stories, this thread is supposed to be focussed on the malfeasance of the media - they, in the 'modern' era, are responsible for quite a bit of muddying of the waters for historians trying to tease the 'most true' tale out of the records.
I sometimes get on my high horse and pontificate about I used to be a historian so I know what I'm on about, which is a naughty thing to do and I try to avoid now I am older and a bit wiser about the traps such conceited thinking gets you into. For there is no denying it, there is always more than one way to read the 'facts' and tell the story :nods:.
As you say, speaking of stories, this thread is supposed to be focussed on the malfeasance of the media - they, in the 'modern' era, are responsible for quite a bit of muddying of the waters for historians trying to tease the 'most true' tale out of the records.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
You have to be active in seeking out "real" news.
All the major "news" outlets are stricly commentary and rarely just report the facts. MSNBC, FOX, CNN... all will admit that a lot of their programming is commentary, but even the programming they try to pass off as "news" usually has a "panel of experts" at some point blithering on about their "opinions". Other mediums are just as bad... They're just mouthpieces for the administration or party intertests. And big surprise there, they're owned by those same interests!
What fascinates me are those that admit to that fact yet still get their "news" from those sources alone... WTF?
Sorry, I'm feeling left out here. What is wrong with the article? I'm not familiar with that weapon.
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
You are correct.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
The "Look! Look at my cool workout!" thread- Latest: Prince_Alarming
-
-