Open letter to 20/20, Permission is granted to distribute.

[Andy Moynihan]

Ladies, Gentlemen, and the rest of you:

I had intended at first to contact the 20/20 section of abcnews.com, via the email complaint system, but found, to my disappointment, that there was a 500 character limit to all submissions.

I suppose I cannot fault you for designing the site around the literacy limitations of the average 20/20 viewer, but nonetheless I wish to air my full grievance, and therefore will do so in those areas open to me.

I have written this piece today concerning your having made known your intent to air what I assume you mean to pass off as a piece of "journalism" called "If I Only Had A Gun" this coming Friday 10 Apr 2009, as you state on your page here:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/comments?type=story&id=7266934


I can only assume you mean to attempt, yet once more, to dredge up the failed and, quite frankly, tiresome "Anti-gun" agenda again in light of the recent criminal actions over this last weekend.

From what I can see of the text, and from all I could stomach of the video, it would seem you plan to trot out the old bogeyman that any access to guns is dangerous and leads to violence. and--this I find especially humorous-- that you somehow also plan to "prove"that even if one had a gun, one wouldn't be able to use it to defend oneself, and that children use them to kill themselves by accident anyway.

I must confess that normally, I don't often go in for complaining to anti-gun news agencies over their pieces of "journalism"---I cannot explain to anyone wishing to write anti-gun "journalism" how obvious many of their misconceptions are, any more than I could explain to a blind person how obvious it is that the grass is green, and I take very little pleasure in wasting my time engaging in battles of wits with unarmed men in any case.

But nonetheless, since at this time my work hours are cut, I've the rest of the day off, and another family member was just laid off, on this particular single day, my mood is just annoyed enough and just bored enough that I think I will make an exception and condescend to show you the error of your ways purely for my own amusement.

So we will take it piece by piece:

The single most grievous aspect of this piece of "journalism" must be called out first of all:

In the video in that link, which is intended to promote this piece of "journalism", whichever diseased lifeform is in charge of such matters apparently thought it was acceptable to show hidden camera footage of a young child putting an unloaded revolver to it's head and pulling the trigger( which, no doubt, one of your people off camera coached the child to do) in some attempt to illustrate "the attraction kids have to guns".

If I were to call this transparent attempt at sensationalism "vile" I would be doing an injustice to the dictioned word. Nonetheless it will have to do, for it is all that comes to mind that remains printable.


In this vile attempt at sensationalism you decide to show children putting guns to their own heads in order to " convince" us that " guns are bad."

If what you were after was a convincing, logical argument that anyone of consequence would listen to, well I believe that is what the modern slang refers to as an "epic fail".


It speaks volumes as to how desperate you and most other mainstream news agencies must be to keep from going out of business that you must stoop to such levels just to attempt to generate interest, and now you wonder why no one watches the news anymore.


Next in line must be this farcical notion that you will "prove" guns to be useless for self defense.

Please.

Stop.

Just stop.

We have heard all of this illogic from you before--that the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals, and all about how an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you, and all about how the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which didn't exist until created by an act of Congress in 1903, and how a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20, or how ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed, and all about how most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

You see, the problem you are having here, is the same problem all the mainstream news corporations are having.

You have forgotten your place.

It is your place to report objectively and without bias on items of actual news, it is *not* your place to favor one political agenda over another, and most certainly it is *NOT* your place to act as subject matter experts on a subject about which you quite obviously know nothing.

As a state and nationally certified firearms instructor myself, yes, I too am often approached in conversation by people expressing concerns over accidental shootings, and I answer that it concerns me too, and that that is why I made the effort to become professionally qualified to teach people how to deal safely with them, and thus to become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

But the fact you allowed someone to put this piece of "journalism" together speaks loudly and clearly to the fact that you wouldn't know anything about that.

To summarize, This piece of journalism is "a piece of" something, all right, but absolutely nothing resembling "journalism".

May your ratings continue to tank.

Reality Check Concluded,

I remain

Andy Moynihan

 

[Flying Crane]

you might want to wait until you've actually watched the piece, so you can comment/debate/debunk in a meaningful way.

Otherwise, you are writing a letter to dispute something that not only have you not seen, but hasn't even aired yet. It just lacks credibility and is more likely to be ignored and discarded.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

It was going to be ignored and discarded by ABC anyway, i knew that going in, but i feel better now

(that and the fact i just commented on the text/video which I DID see, or all I could stand of it, and so it *isn't* baseless.

 

[Carol]

:idunno: If it were me I'd follow the proper channels and put in something that fits with their 500 characters or less input system. More likely to be read that way.

I disagree with Michael, I wouldn't watch the episode, because if you criticize what has been aired, the only thing that the program director will note is that it was watched, even by someone that found the subject matter distasteful.

 

[Flying Crane]

I disagree with Michael, I wouldn't watch the episode, because if you criticize what has been aired, the only thing that the program director will note is that it was watched, even by someone that found the subject matter distasteful.

well, if you criticize something you haven't seen, and hasn't even aired, they you are just a crazy gun nut and they will toss it without even opening it.

I'd suggest you watch the piece and take notes. Hit the big 4 or 5 points that you think are the biggest problem. Don't try to hit every little thing that they say. Just go for what you think are the biggest problems, and then debunk them with what you feel are reasonable, clear, and supportable arguments.

I'd also suggest you watch with an open mind and see if there is SOMETHING in the broadcast that you can find agreement with. If you comment on it, it might open the door a bit and make them more receptive.

If they are really only allowing 500 character comments, then you might need to look for a different venue. Maybe the Op-Ed page in a major newspaper with wide circulation.

My point is simply that if you want to be taken seriously, then you've got to come across as reasonable, even tho you disagree. If you write a scathing review of something that you haven't seen, and hasn't aired, then nobody will take you seriously.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Nevermind. Crosspost.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

well, if you criticize something you haven't seen, and hasn't even aired, they you are just a crazy gun nut and they will toss it without even opening it.

I'd suggest you watch the piece and take notes. Hit the big 4 or 5 points that you think are the biggest problem. Don't try to hit every little thing that they say. Just go for what you think are the biggest problems, and then debunk them with what you feel are reasonable, clear, and supportable arguments.

I'd also suggest you watch with an open mind and see if there is SOMETHING in the broadcast that you can find agreement with. If you comment on it, it might open the door a bit and make them more receptive.

If they are really only allowing 500 character comments, then you might need to look for a different venue. Maybe the Op-Ed page in a major newspaper with wide circulation.

My point is simply that if you want to be taken seriously, then you've got to come across as reasonable, even tho you disagree. If you write a scathing review of something that you haven't seen, and hasn't aired, then nobody will take you seriously.

I get the point you're making, but you're *really* not getting this.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

:idunno: If it were me I'd follow the proper channels and put in something that fits with their 500 characters or less input system. More likely to be read that way.

I disagree with Michael, I wouldn't watch the episode, because if you criticize what has been aired, the only thing that the program director will note is that it was watched, even by someone that found the subject matter distasteful.

Exactly.

 

[Flying Crane]

I get the point you're making, but you're *really* not getting this.

OK, then help me out...

 

[Andy Moynihan]

OK, then help me out...

The point is that there's no way 20/20 or abcnews would ever even acknowledge a letter of this type--it goes against their bias and so would never see the light of day no matter how well worded.. I also don't care if they see it as this was my venting exercise for the day, and eventually someone from there will see it as I've put it in every gun related (and one or two not gun related) group i participate in and have told my pro gun friends they are OK to do the same, so that people who matter *will* see it at some point. I'm not that bugged about it.

For one thing--as I've said at least TWICE now--I commented only on what WAS AIRED IN THE VIDEO LINK. So what I commented on was what I HAVE SEEN. That is enough to put me off the rest and these people need to know that this sort of thing is, in fact putting people OFF of watching their material. Do you understand the concept now?

 

[Flying Crane]

The point is that there's no way 20/20 or abcnews would ever even acknowledge a letter of this type--it goes against their bias and so would never see the light of day no matter how well worded.. I also don't care if they see it as this was my venting exercise for the day, and eventually someone from there will see it as I've put it in every gun related (and one or two not gun related) group i participate in and have told my pro gun friends they are OK to do the same, so that people who matter *will* see it at some point. I'm not that bugged about it.

ok then.

The problem is, you are mostly venting to the choir. It's an issue that you clearly feel strongly about, and you might find a way to present your position to the larger population, many of whom may not be part of said same choir. Hence my suggestion of the Op-Ed pages of a large-circulation newspaper.

If you just wanted to vent, and you are satisfied with that, then OK, you're done.

If you feel strongly enough about it to try and actually get your message out in a persuasive way to the general public, then I offered some constructive criticism and suggestions. Take it or leave it, your choice.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Well, I'm not done putting it out yet, you gots to give me more than a few hours, bro.

 

[Thesemindz]

access to guns is dangerous and leads to violence.

access to guns is dangerous and leads to violence.

They also plan to prove that even if you had a gun, you wouldn't be able to use it to defend yourself, and that kids use them to kill themselves by accident anyway.

that you somehow also plan to "prove"that even if one had a gun, one wouldn't be able to use it to defend oneself, and that children use them to kill themselves by accident anyway.

when they discuss "the attraction kids have to guns," they show hidden camera footage of a young child putting an unloaded revolver to it's head and pulling the trigger.

hidden camera footage of a young child putting an unloaded revolver to it's head and pulling the trigger( which, no doubt, one of your people off camera coached the child to do) in some attempt to illustrate "the attraction kids have to guns".

In a vile attempt at sensationalism they intend to show children putting guns to their own heads in order to convince us that "guns are bad."

In this vile attempt at sensationalism you decide to show children putting guns to their own heads in order to " convince" us that " guns are bad."

Wow. Two great minds?


-Rob

 

[Carol]

well, if you criticize something you haven't seen, and hasn't even aired, they you are just a crazy gun nut and they will toss it without even opening it.

I'd suggest you watch the piece and take notes. Hit the big 4 or 5 points that you think are the biggest problem. Don't try to hit every little thing that they say. Just go for what you think are the biggest problems, and then debunk them with what you feel are reasonable, clear, and supportable arguments.

I'd also suggest you watch with an open mind and see if there is SOMETHING in the broadcast that you can find agreement with. If you comment on it, it might open the door a bit and make them more receptive.

If they are really only allowing 500 character comments, then you might need to look for a different venue. Maybe the Op-Ed page in a major newspaper with wide circulation.

My point is simply that if you want to be taken seriously, then you've got to come across as reasonable, even tho you disagree. If you write a scathing review of something that you haven't seen, and hasn't aired, then nobody will take you seriously.

Going to disagree with you here on a few different fronts. I agree, being reasonable is important.

Personally I think its completely reasonable to not like the way a show is being promoted/positioned. To indicate that one did not watch a show based on that is a way of letting the network know that one voted with one's feet (or remote? LOL) and did not give in to what the network is trying to do (get people to watch and talk about what aired).

The most effective complaints, IMO, will be if someone watches the show, and takes note of who advertises during the program, and then making a reasonable (and pithy) complaint to the advertisers.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Wow. Two great minds?


-Rob

yes. Your post inspired my response.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, I'm not done putting it out yet, you gots to give me more than a few hours, bro.

well, I think if you decide to pursue it, it's gonna take some real work. First you gotta watch the broadcast, probably record it so you can review the parts you want to focus on, and then take some time to compose your thoughts in a way that seems reasonable and persuasive. Make sure you back up your arguments with data or whatever you need.

Obviously this is a topic that gets emotions steamed up on both sides. I think you've got to be really careful about how you present yourself and your arguments, because there is a whole lot of knee-jerk and "shooting from the hip" on both sides of the debate. And that kind of thing often just adds fuel to the fire and generates similar responses that go back and forth and the entire dialog breaks down before it even gets started.

I'd honestly like to see some real, and respectful dialog on this topic. Usually it's just a lot of name-calling and accustions of idiocy that are flung back and forth. Somebody's got to start the conversation, and be willing to enter into it in a civil way. And be willing to refrain from taking low shots at each other.

 

[Flying Crane]

Going to disagree with you here on a few different fronts. I agree, being reasonable is important.

Personally I think its completely reasonable to not like the way a show is being promoted/positioned. To indicate that one did not watch a show based on that is a way of letting the network know that one voted with one's feet (or remote? LOL) and did not give in to what the network is trying to do (get people to watch and talk about what aired).

The most effective complaints, IMO, will be if someone watches the show, and takes note of who advertises during the program, and then making a reasonable (and pithy) complaint to the advertisers.

yeah, in theory that's true. But I don't think it happens in reality. I don't know how many people watch 20/20, I don't know how many will watch this particular broadcast. I watch the show on occasion, and I've seen some pretty awful stuff on it as well. Does John Stasel belong to this show? If so, I remember an awful piece he did on health insurance. The guy is a moron.

But anyway, good luck in getting the masses to boycott the show and boycott the advertisers on any meaningful level. It just won't happen.

the battle, I think, isn't so much with the network, but rather in getting your message out to the people at large. You can disagree with the broadcast, and demonize the network all you like. But the network offers lots of programming, and the people as a whole will still watch, even if they avoid specific shows. I avoid most TV shows because most of them are really stupid, and I don't respond much to TV advertising because most of what is for sale is unnecessary junk, but that certainly hasn't shut anybody down.

So a more effective approach is to get the message out to the people, to help them understand that maybe the real truth about guns isn't exactly what is portrayed on 20/20. It's the education of the people that matters, not the telling off of the network. If the people start to understand a different picture, eventually the network will start to see that they are presenting a skewed point of view, and they will stop. But the People need to get that message first. And I can promise you it will be a long, uphill battle.

The only way you can get the message out is by watching the show, and then debunking its message in a clear, intelligent, and reasonable way. Boycotting it will go absolutely unnoticed.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

well, I think if you decide to pursue it, it's gonna take some real work. First you gotta watch the broadcast, probably record it so you can review the parts you want to focus on, and then take some time to compose your thoughts in a way that seems reasonable and persuasive. Make sure you back up your arguments with data or whatever you need.

Obviously this is a topic that gets emotions steamed up on both sides. I think you've got to be really careful about how you present yourself and your arguments, because there is a whole lot of knee-jerk and "shooting from the hip" on both sides of the debate. And that kind of thing often just adds fuel to the fire and generates similar responses that go back and forth and the entire dialog breaks down before it even gets started.

I'd honestly like to see some real, and respectful dialog on this topic. Usually it's just a lot of name-calling and accustions of idiocy that are flung back and forth. Somebody's got to start the conversation, and be willing to enter into it in a civil way. And be willing to refrain from taking low shots at each other.

I don't see a realistic way that will EVER happen.

I tried just now at a second crack at the abcnews site anyway , even their "feedback" email system won't take more than 2000 characters, and there is no other email they provide.

It isn't like this is gonna end up some earth shattering thing, Mike. It's made it to two pages now and that's WAAAAY more than it deserves.

 

[Flying Crane]

well, it's food for thought, ya know. I think you could find a venue somewhere, if you really decide you want to. But it'll take time, effort, and will likely be a slow battle. I'm just counselling you to carefully craft your presentation.

and whose to say it didn't deserve two pages here? I see a lot of (in my opinon) pointless threads that go on for pages and pages. I think this is a topic of genuine interest and passions. It deserves as many pages as people want to continue.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Sorry if I'm a bit discombibblebobbled to think of such things right now, It's been a tough day with mom getting laid off and all. Didn't mean to get snippy at ya.

But writing that sure was therapeutic, it was.