I'm sure that many journalists (I can't speak to "most") will
occasionally distort things either intentionally or subconsciously. But my
chief point here is that the imprecision in the statement is not an effective
salvo in a culture war against guns. The very inclusion of the statement
(whether put precisely as Bishop's not having a concealed carry license, or
imprecisely as the article itself put it) helps the pro-gun-rights side.
Eugene
From: Raymond Kessler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:36 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Media lies, distortions, and innocent errors
Yes, there are sometimes innocent errors, but most of the media are not above
becoming cultural warriors.
Ray Kessler
Prof. of Criminal Justice
Sul Ross State Univ.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:09 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Media lies, distortions, and innocent errors
I agree that the media often errs badly, especially about guns
but also otherwise. Check out the Boston Globe article about Bishop's killing
her brother 24 years before: "the girl had fought with her brother in the 1986
incident, then shot him with a shotgun and fled down the street with the rifle
in her hand."
But I wonder whether the error below is really part of a
deliberate campaign to lie (presumably in ways that make law-abiding gun
owners, and gun decontrol laws such as shall-issue, look bad). First, I'd
guess that the reporter was just being imprecise, and meant that she had no
concealed carry license. Second, I assume that her lack of license is good for
gun-rights proponents, because it supports the view that licenseholders are
generally highly trustworthy, and shall-issue laws do not increase the rate of
gun crime by gun owners. If she had a concealed carry license, or if readers
thought Alabama didn't require a concealed carry license, that would fit the
anti-carry arguments of the "you give people concealed carry licenses, they'll
start carrying everywhere, and if something happens to anger them, they'll
shoot" variety. So a technically accurate "Police have said Alabama law does
not require a permit for the gun they believe she used in the campus shooting"
would have been worse for the pro-gun-rights side. If the reporter wanted to
make law-abiding gun owners look bad, that's what he would have said; the
sentence he used, while ambiguous, makes law-abiding gun owners look good. Or
am I missing something?
Eugene
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joseph E. Olson
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Media lies and distortions
"Police have said Bishop had no permit for the gun they believe she used in the
campus shooting... ."
Every AP story on the Huntsville murders has contained the quoted phrase
notwithstanding that she had no permit because ALABAMA REQUIRES NO PERMIT to
possess a firearm. It's classic example of media distortion. In federal
Securities Law we call this lying by omission and if you do it in a stock
report, you could get 10 years in federal prison plus a host of civil lawsuits.
If you're in the media, you'll be following the MSM "party line" and get
promoted. No wonder no one trusts reporters anymore.
Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142
Hamline University School of Law f- 651-523-2236
St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
