A New York Post editorial slamming how media bias has crept into news stories took on the Associated Press for how it was covering the Andrew Cuomo scandal with wording clearly aimed at shaping reader opinion about Democrats and Republicans.
Here’s the paragraph in question:
“The escalating political crisis has spawned an impeachment inquiry in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and threatens to cast a cloud over President Joe Biden’s early days in office. Republicans have seized on the scandal to try to distract from Biden’s success tackling the coronavirus pandemic and challenge his party’s well-established advantage with female voters.”
The Post editorial then noted, “This isn’t an opinion piece, or even one of those disingenuously labeled ‘analysis’ stories. This is a news story. One in which the writers inserted a biased, factually incorrect paragraph.”
Fox News picked up the editorial and re-posted it, although some editor inadvertently omitted the final line from the original editorial, which said, “Americans have seized upon such dishonesty, but it’s doubtful the media will ever learn.”
But have Americans really grasped the bias? Not when it comes to how news agencies report about firearms and crime, using terms invented by the gun control lobby to demonize firearms and redirect blame for crime on the weapon instead of the perpetrator. For example:
WPVI News in Philadelphia reported, “As Philadelphia’s homicide total approaches 100 victims for the year, officials and concerned community members gathered to discuss solutions for the city’s gun violence crisis.”
A few lines later, the story added, “Meanwhile, people gathered in North Philadelphia to take an anti-violence pledge and discuss the gun violence crisis, especially among youth.”
That’s twice in a single story the news agency talks about a “gun violence crisis.” Would the story read that way if the city had experienced a string of fatal slashings or stabbings? Would the lead paragraph talk about a city gripped in fear of “knife violence?”
In Chicago, WBBM News reported, “At least 40 people were shot in weekend gun violence in Chicago, and four of them had been killed.” Not “gang violence” or “violent crime.”
Grassroots Second Amendment activists frequently wonder why the media makes such a point of blaming the tool instead of the fool. Guns are the only murder weapon ever blamed for the mayhem. Nobody never read a headline lamenting “Blunt object violence.”
Even The Guardian has adopted the gun control lobby’s lexicon, reporting on a California story, “For decades, America’s gun violence researchers fought an uphill battle against the National Rifle Association to obtain the data and funding they need to study the effects of US gun laws…”
Reporting on the surge in gun and ammunition sales following a resurgence of gun control activity since Joe Biden took office, KMOX News in St. Louis reported, “But now, high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles are in demand.”
What is an “assault rifle?” It certainly isn’t a semi-automatic look-alike of a military weapon. It’s not a “weapon of war” or “military grade” anything, though such phrases also creep into news stories. What the anti-gunners and their media allies are now calling “assault-style rifles” are firearms that function identically to a youngster’s .22-caliber small game rifle or the Browning shotgun your grandfather used to hunt ducks and geese. They just look different, which is to say they look “menacing” to anti-gunners and the media.
“This is how the liberal media shapes opinion, through framing and adjectives,” the New York Post warns.
That’s what Second Amendment advocates have been saying for years. Why has it taken the press so long to admit it?
