About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

The press now ignores gun control. Period.

March 13, 2009 3:16 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Two extraordinary killing sprees were in the news this week, one in Alabama and one in Germany. But when covering the U.S. massacre, the press won't mention gun control. Literally. A search of Nexis uncovered almost no references to "gun control" in any print or television reports about the Alabama shooting rampage, which was powered by military-style assault weapons, and which left 11 people dead.

To highlight the allergic reaction the U.S. press has to even mentioning gun control in the wake of increasingly frequent killing sprees, read the leads to recent WSJ articles about the Alabama massacre and the one at a Germany school.

Here [emphasis added]:

A shooting rampage that began in a southern German school on Wednesday and left 16 dead is likely to stoke fresh debate in Europe about gun control and public security.

And here:

A 28-year-old man, who lived with his mother and whose father said was never in trouble, wrote a hate list and set out on a killing spree that in two hours claimed 11 lives, including his mother's and grandmother's, as well as his own.

Of course the shooting rampage in Germany is bound to spark "fresh debate" about gun control. (It only makes sense, right?) But in America? Fat chance. In part, because the media -- bullied by the NRA, I think -- have become allergic to the topic.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mk3872 (March 13, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
         
      They fear retribution for bringing it up from Beck (lunatic fringe malitias), Limbaugh (butt boy), O'Reilly (producer will track you down)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (March 13, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
         
      If they did bring up registration we would get yet another round of "Obama is Hitler"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jurgan (March 13, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
         
      I'm not sure about this one.  Would it really be appropriate to use a massacre as a springboard for a gun control discussion?  Isn't that an example of politicizing a tragedy?  I realize that such massacres are in fact an argument for gun control, but still, shouldn't we wait a while before making that argument, just out of respect?  In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore is pretty harsh towards Charlton Heston for trying to defend gun rights in the immediate aftermath of school shootings.  Surely it'd be just as crass to fight for gun control after such a shooting- wouldn't it?  I don't know, the lines of decency are too blurry here for my taste.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 13, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
           

        the lines of decency are too blurry here for my taste.

        There's nothing at all indecent about trying to save lives through gun control (meaning, of course, those high-powered automatic ones that no one hunts with, except humans, that is).

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (March 13, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
         

      This is what I'd look for in monitoring the media on this: whether or not they're reporting the all-important information of where and from whom the shooter got his firearm... because if there is any argument to be made about the Federal and State (and even Municipal) Regulations regarding the manufacture distribution and sale of firearms in this particular case, it would begin there:

      Where'd the murderous psycho buy his gun?

      Exactly where and exactly from whom, by name and address?

      It's what the cops want to know, so why shouldn't we also.

      Report Abuse