Media not 'liberal', eh?

[tcsenter]

Below is an AP 'news item' that was carried by newspapers throughout the US today. It happens to be one of a dozen or so identical 'news items' (in implied message) I've seen in the past couple years.

[begin excerpt]

Arizona NRA Rally Held Despite Deadly Shootings

Tucson, Ariz. (AP) - The National Rifle Association and its high-profile leader, Charlton Heston, went ahead with a rally here two days after a flunking student who collected guns shot three professors to death before shooting himself.

An estimated 700 people attended the rally at the Tucson Convention Center, about four miles from the University of Arizona's nursing school, where Monday's shootings took place.

[end excerpt]

Now, why don't we ever see the Associated Press release 'newsworthy' journalism like the fictitious article found below (my example for purposes of illustration)? And would this article, if one like it ever appeared in a newspaper, not be an outrageous example of clear political/ideological bias masked as 'reporting'?

ACLU Holds Rally Despite Recent Rash of Child Murders

Sacramento, Calif. (AP) - An organization whose advocacy encompasses defending the rights of convicted sexual predators and rapists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), went ahead with a rally in Sacramento despite a recent string of child abduction-murders by convicted sex offenders which has rocked several California communities. The ACLU opposes 'sexual predator' laws which require registration and reporting of persons convicted of child molestation, rape, or other sexual crimes. The organization frequently represents rapists and pedophiles in court challenges, arguing that sex offender registries and reporting requirements violate the rights of rapists and child molestors.

Officials at the child rapist defending organization had no comment when AP reporters called to inquire about the timing of their rally and what affect they believed it would have on the community.

[end fictitious excerpt]

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Below is an AP 'news item' that was carried by newspapers throughout the US today. It happens to be one of a dozen or so identical 'news items' (in implied message) I've seen in the past couple years.

[begin excerpt]

Arizona NRA Rally Held Despite Deadly Shootings

Tucson, Ariz. (AP) - The National Rifle Association and its high-profile leader, Charlton Heston, went ahead with a rally here two days after a flunking student who collected guns shot three professors to death before shooting himself.

An estimated 700 people attended the rally at the Tucson Convention Center, about four miles from the University of Arizona's nursing school, where Monday's shootings took place.

[end excerpt]

Now, why don't we ever see the Associated Press release 'newsworthy' journalism like the fictitious article found below (my example for purposes of illustration)? And would this article, if one like it ever appeared in a newspaper, not be an outrageous example of clear political/ideological bias masked as 'reporting'?

ACLU Holds Rally Despite Recent Rash of Child Murders

Sacramento, Calif. (AP) - An organization whose advocacy encompasses defending the rights of convicted sexual predators and rapists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), went ahead with a rally in Sacramento despite a recent string of child abduction-murders by convicted sex offenders which has rocked several California communities. The ACLU opposes 'sexual predator' laws which require registration and reporting of persons convicted of child molestation, rape, or other sexual crimes. The organization frequently represents rapists and pedophiles in court challenges, arguing that sex offender registries and reporting requirements violate the rights of rapists and child molestors.

Officials at the child rapist defending organization had no comment when AP reporters called to inquire about the timing of their rally and what affect they believed it would have on the community.

[end fictitious excerpt]

Maybe because you're a conservative nutcase? Show me where in that article the NRA is criticised. They are just stating that it may not have been the best idea to hold their rally after the shooting. You can't create an entirely different, much more political article, and use it to reason that the media is "liberal". What if I created a ficticious article where the KKK was criticized heavily? The media doesn't write such things so that means they are conservative?

 

[tcsenter]

Maybe because you're a conservative nutcase? Show me where in that article the NRA is criticised.

They're not, explicitly, just as the fictitious article didn't 'criticize' the ACLU, it simply related the "facts". The ACLU does in fact defend and represent child molestors and rapists exactly for the reasons I stated. Where is the ACLU criticized?

You can't create an entirely different, much more political article, and use it to reason that the media is "liberal".

haha, that's what I thought. Its 'much more different' now, eh?

Ok, explain how its "different"?

 

[pulse8]

that's what I thought. Its 'much more different' now, eh?

It's the way you worded it. The actual AP article is quick, to the point and doesn't scream of a political stance. All it does is state the facts one right after the other. It doesn't say, "The gun wielding NRA members" which has more of a bitter, political undertone.

 

[pulse8]

Sacramento, Calif. (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), went ahead with a rally in Sacramento during a recent string of child abduction-murders which has rocked several California communities. The ACLU opposes 'sexual predator' laws which require registration and reporting of persons convicted of child molestation, rape, or other sexual crimes.

That would be a better write up, IMO. It's not as unbiased sounding as your original example and I don't see anything really wrong with it as well as the NRA one.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Sacramento, Calif. (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), went ahead with a rally in Sacramento during a recent string of child abduction-murders which has rocked several California communities. The ACLU opposes 'sexual predator' laws which require registration and reporting of persons convicted of child molestation, rape, or other sexual crimes.

That would be a better write up, IMO. It's not as unbiased sounding as your original example and I don't see anything really wrong with it as well as the NRA one.

Agreed. I might also point out that if the media were truly "liberal" they would be taking chunks out of GWB's ass at every opportunity. I have been surprised at the relatively low level of criticism leveled at him thus far during his presidency.

 

[tcsenter]

It's the way you worded it. The actual AP article is quick, to the point and doesn't scream of a political stance. All it does is state the facts one right after the other. It doesn't say, "The gun wielding NRA members" which has more of a bitter, political undertone.

haha! I love the desperate replies!

NRA members don't necessarily "weild guns", I'm betting there were no guns at the convention, except for some display items, which cannot be "weilded", and that old musket Heston likes to heave up while saying "...from my cold dead hands". But the ACLU certainly does defend child molestors and rapists, precisely for the reasons I stated.

But, I'll indulge your point for a moment and revise the fictitious article:

ACLU Holds Rally Despite Recent Rash of Child Murders

Sacramento, Calif. (AP) - An organization whose advocacy encompasses defending the rights of convicted sexual predators and rapists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), went ahead with a rally in Sacramento despite a recent string of child abduction-murders by convicted sex offenders which has rocked several California communities. The ACLU opposes 'sexual predator' laws which require registration and reporting of persons convicted of child molestation, rape, or other sexual crimes. The organization frequently represents rapists and pedophiles in court challenges, arguing that sex offender registries and reporting requirements violate the rights of rapists and child molestors.

Officials at the organization had no comment when AP reporters called to inquire about the timing of their rally and what affect they believed it would have on the community.

There...

Next!

 

[db]

People believe what they want to believe. They do notice when their beliefs aren't supported or are contradicted, but seldom appreciate all the times their beliefs *are* confirmed, rather just taking them for granted, b/c they assume "that's the way it should be".
In fact, the myth of a liberal media is a huge coup by the extreme right. Congratulations--another day in politics.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

It's the way you worded it. The actual AP article is quick, to the point and doesn't scream of a political stance. All it does is state the facts one right after the other. It doesn't say, "The gun wielding NRA members" which has more of a bitter, political undertone.

haha! I love the desperate replies!

NRA members don't necessarily "weild guns", I'm betting there were no guns at the convention, except for some display items, which cannot be "weilded", and that old musket Heston likes to heave up while saying "...from my cold dead hands". But the ACLU certainly does defend child molestors and rapists, precisely for the reasons I stated.

But, I'll indulge your point for a moment and revise the fictitious article:

ACLU Holds Rally Despite Recent Rash of Child Murders

Sacramento, Calif. (AP) - An organization whose advocacy encompasses defending the rights of convicted sexual predators and rapists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), went ahead with a rally in Sacramento despite a recent string of child abduction-murders by convicted sex offenders which has rocked several California communities. The ACLU opposes 'sexual predator' laws which require registration and reporting of persons convicted of child molestation, rape, or other sexual crimes. The organization frequently represents rapists and pedophiles in court challenges, arguing that sex offender registries and reporting requirements violate the rights of rapists and child molestors.

Officials at the organization had no comment when AP reporters called to inquire about the timing of their rally and what affect they believed it would have on the community.

There...

Next!

Read my second reply. This whole thread is a desperate attempt at nothing.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

It's the way you worded it. The actual AP article is quick, to the point and doesn't scream of a political stance. All it does is state the facts one right after the other. It doesn't say, "The gun wielding NRA members" which has more of a bitter, political undertone.

haha! I love the desperate replies!

NRA members don't necessarily "weild guns", I'm betting there were no guns at the convention, except for some display items, which cannot be "weilded", and that old musket Heston likes to heave up while saying "...from my cold dead hands". But the ACLU certainly does defend child molestors and rapists, precisely for the reasons I stated.

But, I'll indulge your point for a moment and revise the fictitious article:

ACLU Holds Rally Despite Recent Rash of Child Murders

Sacramento, Calif. (AP) - An organization whose advocacy encompasses defending the rights of convicted sexual predators and rapists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), went ahead with a rally in Sacramento despite a recent string of child abduction-murders by convicted sex offenders which has rocked several California communities. The ACLU opposes 'sexual predator' laws which require registration and reporting of persons convicted of child molestation, rape, or other sexual crimes. The organization frequently represents rapists and pedophiles in court challenges, arguing that sex offender registries and reporting requirements violate the rights of rapists and child molestors.

Officials at the organization had no comment when AP reporters called to inquire about the timing of their rally and what affect they believed it would have on the community.

There...

Next!

Nope, you're still prefacing the article with the "encompasses defending nasty people" bit. That would never make it past the editors of any self-respecting news service. It's been a long time since I had any journalism classes, but Pulse8's rendition of the "article" is much more likely to ever see print than yours.

Lots of people are concerned about guns and crime, the NRA's prime directive is to defend the right to keep and bear, thus the two are linked in the minds of many despite the fact that the NRA's doings have very little bearing on weapons used to commit crimes IMO. I'm somewhat surprised the NRA opted to go ahead with the rally and I'm sure others were too. Hence the story. There's nothing implicit in the story that is critical of the NRA aside from deciding to go ahead with the rally in light of recent events. It wouldn't have even merited a mention at all were it not for the shootings.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Maybe because you're a conservative nutcase? Show me where in that article the NRA is criticised. They are just stating that it may not have been the best idea to hold their rally after the shooting. You can't create an entirely different, much more political article, and use it to reason that the media is "liberal". What if I created a ficticious article where the KKK was criticized heavily? The media doesn't write such things so that means they are conservative?

It is my opinion that you know very little about journalism, or in how to read a newspaper in order to gain your own opinion instead of the editors'.
The NRA is being criticized by being cast in a negative light, and not just that the have poor timing on when to hold their already pre-planned-months-ago convention (rally is another word used to convey a somewhat clandestine meeting). The newpaper is also trying to implicate that the NRA is partially responsible for the shootings because the organization advocates private gun ownership. The fact that murder would continue with or without guns is (of course) left out and in fact empathized as being the opposite.
Tcsenter's fictional example was inaccurrate, but your use of insults and attacks on his political viewpoint do nothing to further your own cause. The fact is that it is another biased newspaper article, nothing new to see here. Sorry you don't have the reading comprehension to be able to understand it.

 

[Maetryx]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
I'm somewhat surprised the NRA opted to go ahead with the rally and I'm sure others were too. Hence the story. There's nothing implicit in the story that is critical of the NRA aside from deciding to go ahead with the rally in light of recent events. It wouldn't have even merited a mention at all were it not for the shootings.

When terrorists flew airplanes into buildings and then someone started mailing anthrax, we were all told to go about our lives and don't let the bad guys dictate to us which normal activities we normally participate in. It would be unamerican to change our routines and be herded about by those a-holes.

But if somone shoots a couple people with a gun, we're supposed to close shop and go home "in light of recent events".

In fact the rally didn't merit a mention at all. The NRA is not affiliated with gun crimes any more than the United Auto Workers are related to drunk driving.

 

[tcsenter]

Nope, you're still prefacing the article with the "encompasses defending nasty people" bit. That would never make it past the editors of any self-respecting news service. It's been a long time since I had any journalism classes, but Pulse8's rendition of the "article" is much more likely to ever see print than yours.

Yeah, that's precisely the point. There is nothing 'nasty' about telling the unbiased truth. What is 'untrue' about "An organization whose advocacy encompasses defending the rights of convicted sexual predators and rapists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)..."? Nothing of course, it is 100% accurate. Thank you for confirming my point that such an article would never see the light of day, and NOT because its inaccurate, but precisely BECAUSE its accurate.

Lots of people are concerned about guns and crime,

Lots of people concerned about convicted pedophiles and the safety of their children...

the NRA's prime directive is to defend the right to keep and bear, thus the two are linked in the minds of many despite the fact that the NRA's doings have very little bearing on weapons used to commit crimes IMO.

And sexual predators are NOT linked to sexual crimes and abductions against children?

I'm somewhat surprised the NRA opted to go ahead with the rally and I'm sure others were too. Hence the story. There's nothing implicit in the story that is critical of the NRA aside from deciding to go ahead with the rally in light of recent events. It wouldn't have even merited a mention at all were it not for the shootings.

haha, I love the desperatism!

There is no more of a relationship between the NRA's rally and the nursing school shootings than there is between the ACLU's advocacy and some incident of a child murder/abduction by a pedophile.

Of course, the PURPOSE of the article is to imply that the NRA is somehow related to the shootings, just as the purpose of the fictitious article is to imply that the ACLU is somehow related to some child abduction case.

I would be damned furious to see such an article written about the ACLU. But its 'ok' to make the same fast and lose associations, implied or otherwise, against the NRA. Notice the title of the article wasn't "NRA Holds Tuscon Rally" then proceeds to simply report that the NRA had a rally. Nooo, there is a deliberate attempt to associate the NRA with the recent shootings.

Why on earth would the NRA cancel a rally which has no bearing or relation whatsoever to the shootings? That would constitute a tacit confession that the NRA somehow has reason to hide. It does not, nor does the ACLU.

But you are exactly right in that any "self-respecting" newspaper would never allow an article to be published which might imply that the ACLU has some reason to hide its head due to some child abduction case, but the NRA? No problem.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Maetryx

Originally posted by: Fausto1
I'm somewhat surprised the NRA opted to go ahead with the rally and I'm sure others were too. Hence the story. There's nothing implicit in the story that is critical of the NRA aside from deciding to go ahead with the rally in light of recent events. It wouldn't have even merited a mention at all were it not for the shootings.

When terrorists flew airplanes into buildings and then someone started mailing anthrax, we were all told to go about our lives and don't let the bad guys dictate to us which normal activities we normally participate in. It would be unamerican to change our routines and be herded about by those a-holes.

But if somone shoots a couple people with a gun, we're supposed to close shop and go home "in light of recent events".

In fact the rally didn't merit a mention at all. The NRA is not affiliated with gun crimes any more than the United Auto Workers are related to drunk driving.

Agreed, but that's not what I was getting at. I'm surprised they went ahead with the rally strictly from a "garnering bad press" standpoint. They have enough enemies already, you think they might shoot for a few brownie points by postponing the rally accompanied by an "out of respect to the victims of this tragic event" message. I know you're going to say that this would be pandering to the media and the left, but PR is PR. JMO. <shrug>

Also, I never implied the NRA had anything to do with gun crimes. I in fact stated the opposite.

 

[outriding]

Ok you say the media is liberal.

So answer me this.

You own a tv station you promote stories that make the liberals look good and dont do anything for or only promote the negatives on the conservatives. Later you have some money and you think to yourself wow i have been really hard on the conservatives i think i will donate some money to the hertiage foundation and that will make it all better.

man i really wish the conservatives would do some research.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Nope, you're still prefacing the article with the "encompasses defending nasty people" bit. That would never make it past the editors of any self-respecting news service. It's been a long time since I had any journalism classes, but Pulse8's rendition of the "article" is much more likely to ever see print than yours.

Yeah, that's precisely the point. There is nothing 'nasty' about telling the unbiased truth. What is 'untrue' about "An organization whose advocacy encompasses defending the rights of convicted sexual predators and rapists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)..."? Nothing of course, it is 100% accurate. Thank you for confirming my point that such an article would never see the light of day, and NOT because its inaccurate, but precisely BECAUSE its accurate.

Lots of people are concerned about guns and crime,

Lots of people concerned about convicted pedophiles and the safety of their children...

the NRA's prime directive is to defend the right to keep and bear, thus the two are linked in the minds of many despite the fact that the NRA's doings have very little bearing on weapons used to commit crimes IMO.

And sexual predators are NOT linked to sexual crimes and abductions against children?

I'm somewhat surprised the NRA opted to go ahead with the rally and I'm sure others were too. Hence the story. There's nothing implicit in the story that is critical of the NRA aside from deciding to go ahead with the rally in light of recent events. It wouldn't have even merited a mention at all were it not for the shootings.

haha, I love the desperatism!

There is no more of a relationship between the NRA's rally and the nursing school shootings than there is between the ACLU's advocacy and some incident of a child murder/abduction by a pedophile.

Of course, the PURPOSE of the article is to imply that the NRA is somehow related to the shootings, just as the purpose of the fictitious article is to imply that the ACLU is somehow related to some child abduction case.

I would be damned furious to see such an article written about the ACLU. But its 'ok' to make the same fast and lose associations, implied or otherwise, against the NRA. Notice the title of the article wasn't "NRA Holds Tuscon Rally" then proceeds to simply report that the NRA had a rally. Nooo, there is a deliberate attempt to associate the NRA with the recent shootings.

Why on earth would the NRA cancel a rally which has no bearing or relation whatsoever to the shootings? That would constitute a tacit confession that the NRA somehow has reason to hide. It does not, nor does the ACLU.

But you are exactly right in that any "self-respecting" newspaper would never allow an article to be published which might imply that the ACLU has some reason to hide its head due to some child abduction case, but the NRA? No problem.

I officially don't get you sometimes. You're generally very well-reasoned and well-spoken and I respect your opinions despite being on the other side of the political fence. In this case however, it is clear that you woke up with something pricky in your shorts and decided to pick a fight over in Off Topic. I'm all for a nice debate on any give subject (this is certainly an interesting one) but you're not bothering to read carefully the words of others. No one's desperate. No one's insulting you. You're sounding more and more like Texmaster returned from the dead as this thread goes on.

That said, I'll try to make myself clear. You're focusing on "truth" in this supposed ACLU article. Yes, it is true that they advocate rights of the people in question in your fictional article. The obvious bias, as pointed out by myself and Pulse, comes in how the article is worded.

"An organization whose advocacy encompasses defending the rights of convicted sexual predators and rapists"

See how negative that is? And it's the very first thing in your article. True? Yes. But it is hugely biased. If the NRA article were written the same way, it would start with something like "The NRA, an organization who advocates ownership of items often involved in crimes...blah, blah, blah". It makes a negative association despite being truthful.

There is no more of a relationship between the NRA's rally and the nursing school shootings than there is between the ACLU's advocacy and some incident of a child murder/abduction by a pedophile.

You're correct, and I agree with you. BUT, there is a relationship between the NRA and violent crime in the minds of many (as I have already stated). It's an irrational and uninformed opinion, but it exists nonetheless. Again, I'm surprised that NRA went ahead with the rally since I'm sure they are aware of this perceived association. Sure, there's really no good reason for them to stop the rally due to what is essentially an unrelated event, but unfortunately (and as any politician knows) the public isn't all that smart or well-informed. Sometimes you have to do things strictly for a PR standpoint. I doubt that a "respectful" postponement of the event would have alienated the NRA faithful and it sure as hell would have played well to the rest of the population. I just think it was a bad PR decision, but it was theirs to make. It's all about spin and they just ignored everything. I find that surprising for an organization so often in the spotlight.

For the record, here's the full AP article:

NRA goes ahead with Tucson rally days after shootings at nursing school
Wed Oct 30, 9:17 PM ET
By JONATHAN DREW, Associated Press Writer

TUCSON, Arizona - The National Rifle Association and its high-profile leader, actor Charlton Heston, went ahead with a rally two days after a failing student who collected guns shot three professors to death before killing himself.

An estimated 700 people attended Wednesday's rally at the Tucson Convention Center, about four miles from the University of Arizona's nursing school, where Monday's shootings took place.

NRA Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre defended the event to help Arizona Republican candidates in next week's midterm elections, saying it had long been planned and that there was no connection between the gunman's actions and what the NRA stands for.

"I honestly think that if a madman had driven a car into a crowd and if there was a car convention scheduled, they wouldn't cancel the convention," LaPierre said.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Matt Salmon was scheduled to appear at the event but did not attend. NRA officials said Salmon, who is in a close race with Democrat Janet Napolitano, canceled all Tucson appearances out of respect for the shooting victims.

Republican attorney general candidate Andrew Thomas said he believed the event could deliver a positive message.

"This rally is about self-defense against violent predators such as the murderer who killed three innocent professors," Thomas said.

Heston, the actor who recently announced he has symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites), addressed the crowd briefly, made no reference to the shootings and did not refer to the candidates by name.

A few dozen people protested outside.

"We're here to tell Charlton Heston to go the hell home," said Sean Hammond, 31, of Tucson. "We just had the worst shooting in the history of Tucson just two days ago."

Tucson resident Mike Middono, 41, who attended the rally, disagreed.

"That tragedy would not have happened if more people had guns," he said.

The full text of the article is actually pretty balanced. It does mention the NRA and the shootings in the same breath, but also contains several quotes defending the position of the NRA and pointing out that the rally is in fact totally unrelated to the shootings. It even mentions that it had been planned far in advance of the shootings. I think you're getting all wound up over nothing.

 

[0roo0roo]

nra loves to hold rallys right after children kill each other columbine etc etc etc. its their pattern chuckie chuckie chuckie. bad boy.

these are mean spirited twisted folk

 

[Ferocious]

Being a moderate, I find there are just as many examples of "conservative" biased news items in the media.

But it's interesting that usually only the conservatives spend time complaining about "liberal" stories they encounter. While in a much rarer fashion do I see liberals complaining about "conservative" slanted stories.

Seems like to be a conservative, you must continually find ways to fuel your anger....whereas it seems like liberals have better things to do...and are generally more happy.

I remember when I was a Reagan/Bush pseudo conservative....I was seemingly always trying to find evidence to support the screwed up mentality I desired to be in.

 

[0roo0roo]

""?From my cold dead hands? were the words that actor/president of the NRA Charlton Heston growled while holding a rifle over his head at an NRA rally in Colorado 10 days after the shootings at Columbine High School in 1999. "

Wednesday, October 30, 2002
Heston On His Way to Tucson to Gloat After Latest School Shooting

To: Charlton Heston, President, NRA
From: Michael Moore, Winner, NRA Marksman Award
Subject: Your Visit to Tucson Today in the Wake of Another School Shooting

Dear Mr. Heston:

When you showed up in Denver to hold your pro-gun rally just days after the massacre at nearby Columbine High School, the nation was shocked at your incredible insensitivity to those who had just lost loved ones.

When you came to Flint to hold another rally in the months after a 6-year old boy shot a 6-year old girl at a nearby elementary school, the community was stunned by your desire to rub its face in its grief.

But your announcement that you are on your way to Tucson today, just 48 hours after a student at the University of Arizona shot and killed three professors and then himself, to hold ANOTHER big pro-gun celebration -- this time to get out the vote for the NRA-backed Republican running for Congress -- well, sir, I have to ask you: Have you no shame?

I am asking that you not go to Tucson today. Do not cause any more grief, any more pain. Let the relatives and friends of the deceased mourn. Why show up to play the role of the bully, kicking these good people when they are down, just so you can prove that you have a right to your big, bad guns? These are not the actions of a once brave and decent man. They are the acts of a coward, as no man of courage would think of picking on his fellow citizens when they are so consumed with tragedy.

Obviously, you couldn't care less. Because to you, The Gun is supreme -- and wherever it is used to kill multiple people (preferably at a school), there shall we find you gloating about some misbegotten right you think you have to own a device that is designed to eliminate human life.

Well, Mr. Heston, this time I think you have crossed the line. I hope that your efforts as a gun supremacist -- you are now, I understand, in the middle of a 12-state tour to help elect Republicans -- backfire on you in the surest way that it can: total rejection of you, the NRA, and the candidates you back come next Tuesday. The American people have had enough.

To the people of Tucson and the students at the University of Arizona, I am so sorry for the tragedy you have suffered, and I feel terribly sad that you will have to endure the sight of Charlton Heston and his gun nuts today. Take some solace in knowing that your fellow Americans by an overwhelming margin want tough gun laws -- and that the day of obtaining them is not far away. There is one small way to make sure Heston and the NRA are stopped in their tracks -- just check out the website of the man (http://www.grijalva2002.com/) they have come to Tucson to defeat. Let them pack their guns -- we will pack the polls!

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
http://www.michaelmoore.com/message/index.php

 

[ElFenix]

why does michael moore get positive press all the time? that should tell you right there. who the heck is he, anyway?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
why does michael moore get positive press all the time? that should tell you right there. who the heck is he, anyway?

a fuggin idiot.

 

[0roo0roo]

even an idiot is sometimes right

 

[ElFenix]

sounds like he has just as much right to tell people how to run themselves as barbara streisand, which isn't much

 

[Ornery]

"...so often in the spotlight."

By who? THE LIBERAL MEDIA, THAT'S WHO!

"...there is a relationship between the NRA and violent crime in the minds of many (as I have already stated). It's an irrational and uninformed opinion, but it exists nonetheless. Again, I'm surprised that NRA went ahead with the rally since I'm sure they are aware of this perceived association. Sure, there's really no good reason for them to stop the rally due to what is essentially an unrelated event, but unfortunately (and as any politician knows) the public isn't all that smart or well-informed."

BAM! Now you're catching on, or will shortly. Why is it that the NRA is so tied to "violent crime in the minds of many"? Why is the ACLU NOT tied to child molesters getting short sentences and general coddling by the justice system? Could it be that the liberal press harps endlessly about the NRA and nary a whit about the ACLU? Hmmmm?

You know damn well the press is generally liberal, as is Hollywood. You might be able to debate at length about WHY that is, but not that it ISN'T the truth! Not biased? Puh-lease! Try Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. People are so used to our slanted media, they think it's normal!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
sounds like he has just as much right to tell people how to run themselves as barbara streisand, which isn't much

so your judging him based on what? that he full of it since he's in the entertainment industry? or was it because he grew up with guns?

or is it because moses himself heads the nra. sounds like heston has no right to say anything