Allan Levite takes a quick look at 30 years of gun-control coverage in the major media:
The Tribune’s coverage of this issue was still awful in 1998, when a referendum in neighboring Wisconsin approved by a landslide an amendment to the state constitution to guarantee the people’s right to bear arms. On November 4, the day after the election, an article on page 19 about initiatives dismissed the results:
In Wisconsin, where schools and businesses in some towns close down for deer hunting, voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution guaranteeing a right to bear arms. [Who ever heard of the media trying to explain away a liberal election result like this?]
This was the 13th of 15 paragraphs. But it omitted that the amendment guaranteed this right “for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose” ― not just for hunting. Only three years earlier, a Milwaukee handgun ban referendum was voted down by a 2 to 1 margin. These voters would be much less likely than rural Wisconsinites to go hunting frequently, and even less likely to use pistols for it.
The November 4 New York Times ran a section on election results in every state ― five paragraphs on Wisconsin election results ― but not a word about the bear-arms vote anywhere in the entire edition. The next day’s Times ran the same state-by-state coverage, reworded ― but again, no mention of the gun initiative in the Wisconsin section. This issue also carried an article on initiatives nationwide (“THE 1998 ELECTIONS: THE STATES — INITIATIVES; From Same-Sex Marriages To Gambling, Voters Speak.”) But nowhere were Wisconsin or its referendum even mentioned. The Washington Post’s November 4th and 5th editions each carried sizable articles ― by different reporters ― on how initiatives fared in various states. Both articles related that there were 61 initiatives nationwide (one was titled “Initiatives Bypass Traditional Lawmaking“) but neither article even mentioned Wisconsin, let alone its firearms referendum. (Obviously, the fact that the Post uncovered the Watergate scandal does not mean that it is above suppressing news itself, when the news is unwelcome.)
Gun control is one of the worst subjects when it comes to media bias. I suspect that’s because most bigfoot journalists don’t come from backgrounds where hunting and shooting are a big part of life.
Some years ago, when I was editing a newspaper in suburban Philadelphia, I heard one of our state senators, Connie Williams, claim that some particular scary firearm–I believe it was a semi-auto Uzi carbine–could fire 30 rounds in five seconds. I wrote a column challenging her on that claim, offering to provide an example of said firearm at a nearby shooting range and offering to let her have her choice of shooters–police officer, Olympic shooting champion, professional hit-man, whatever. I wagered that nobody could empty that gun that fast–much less while keeping the thing on target–and I bet her the balance of her bank accounts vs. the balance of my bank accounts, plus my guns and my concealed-carry license. (It should probably be noted here that Sen. Williams is the daugher of oil tycoon Leon Hess and therefore worth quite a bit more than your average suburban newspaper editor.)
The senator didn’t take me up on my wager, and the other media carried her absurd claims without challenging them. Lazy journalists never let the truth get in the way of a good story.