Did we mention the media don't care about epic gun violence?
March 30, 2009 2:06 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
And that the press, aside from downplaying what have now become routine, gun-related killing sprees that dot the nation, has completely walked away from even raising the issue of gun control in the wake of the rampages?
The latest proof came in the wake of the carnage that unfolded in Carthage, North Carolina, on Sunday when a heavily armed suspect, Robert Stewart, entered a local retirement home and began randomly shooting patients and employees with a high-powered rifle. Eight were killed and three others were wounded before police subdued the man. The local police chief described the killing scene as "unimaginable, horrific, everything you can possible imagine that is bad in this world."
The thin coverage the story has received nationwide has been rather astounding. According to TVeyes.com, in the 24 hours since news broke about the bloody killing spree, it has received just 180 mentions on cable and network television, combined (i.e. ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and NBC.)
By contrast, the flood that didn't materialize as feared in Fargo, North Dakota, over the weekend received nearly 250 mentions during the same time span. So the flood that didn't happen got more coverage than than the killing rampage that left eight people dead in North Carolina.
Also, TV mentions of General Motors in the last 24 hours, prompted by the news its CEO is being forced out, far outnumbered the news mentions of the nursing home killing spree.
As for a discussion of gun control in the wake of the nursing home massacre, forget about it. It never came up on TV. The press has no interest in dissecting our Rampage Nation.
UPDATE: As a reader notes, there was another killing rampage over the weekend. This one inside a Santa Clara, California home; 6 dead (including three children), one critically injured.
To date, there have been just seven mentions of the story on cable and network news, according to TVeyes.com
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Especially in comparison to terrorism gun violence is way played down. Any other method of killing random people so frequently would get much more government and media scrutiny.
Drunk driving deaths, albeit horrendous and inexcusable, are NOT AT ALL comparable to a domestic terrorist breaking out his firearms to willfully and intentionally murder our fellow citizens. Sorry...your analogy fails...completely. Next.
"The Second Amendment breathes life into liberty. The Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
Wayne LaPierre, president of the NRA
I
I love how the guys who discuss liberty all of the time are fond of lines like "the guys with the guns make the rules."
There's no flood in Fargo????? Probably because the citizenry was out filling sandbags, rather that huddling in a shelter somewhere waiting for "the government" to take care of the problem.
Oh, and there was a killing rampage in MA late last week that received little attention from the media (but then it involved knives rather than guns).
There's no flood in Fargo????? Probably because the citizenry was out filling sandbags
Nope.
Try 'teh google'
"The Red River dropped to 38.96 feet Monday, nearly 2 feet below its peak but nearly 21 feet above flood stage. City officials have said they would breathe easier when the river falls to 36 or 37 feet or lower."
Just for your info, Victor.
When a gunman goes on a killing spree, isn't this a form of domestic terrorism?
The radical right are "outraged" because of some lame scuttlebutt regarding Biden's daughter, but they are utterly silent when yet another nut goes lose on civilians with his firearms.
By the way, are there any statistics comparing gun violence during democratic presidencies versus republican?
Grouch is clearly just another radical extremist righty who refuses to address the topic at hand, but instead will desperately toss out every straw man and red herring possible: knives, drunk driving, sand bags.
Care to stay on topic?
I was at a gun show this weekend and everyone I talked to there kept telling me that Obama was going to take all of the guns, and that they would take them from their cold dead hands kind of thing.
Also, there are lots of people hoarding ammo, because again, they think that Obama is going to take their guns away. Except for the fact, you know, that, Obama has proposed nothing of the sort, nor has he moved to limit gun purchases, or enact any form of gun control.
Who stands to benefit the most from hysteria over whether the government is going to repeal gun rights and take guns away from people? That would be the gun lobby and manufacturers. The same people shouting and lying the loudest about Obama taking away gun rights are the same people who stand to benefit the most. I thought that was fraud. I can, at least, call it fraudulent.
Corporate interests have hijacked the media and don't want to upset anyone.......except you cannot advertise guns/weapons on TV.
So....what gives ?
I'm sure that the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of firearms in America (all collectively represented by the NRA) are not very happy with the fact of these many recent shootings, or with what they might consider to be any over-emphasis on those shootings, in the news.
And if there's any attempt to de-emphasize those reports in the media (and it wouldn't surprise me one bit), then I'd guess that attempt to be the work of the NRA: who as I said, is the lobbying agent of firearm manufacturers and distributers and retailers.
And we can knock off this "grassroots organization" bullchit: the NRA is an industry lobby, pure and simple. What lobby is there, that wouldn't love to pretend that it is people, millions of them, that they represent, instead of the truth, that they represent the business interests of an industry, and the de-regulation (or less regulation) of that industry.
Whenever I hear the reports of these shootings, there's always one thing I want to know, but find that's it's about the only thing those reports won't tell me: exactly how and where and from whom, did the murderous bastid in question get or buy his weapon, his firearm.
It's a question so important to the cops investigating the shooting, that they get the answer but quick, before the sun has even set on the tragic day in question. And they're on that gun shop or retailer (or whoever) as fast as they can, to know all the details of the sale (or whatever).
They find out exactly who sold the murderer the firearm: they find out the exact name and address, and they go there: they interview the retailer in the most serious way: they get every last detail of the sale: everything they learn then becomes part of their investigation: all of those details become part of the Public Record...
And then I find for some strange reason, those details from that part of the Public Record, are somehow and for some reason all but completely ignored, in the media reports of the shooting.
Sometimes I wonder why... but I figure I already know: it's the industry that's important here, it's the selling and manufacturing of firearms that generates such a protective interest here. It's a simple matter of Public Record where the murderous bastid bought his weapon, his firearm: but somehow that matter gets overlooked in the media reports, in the business interests of selling firearms (which is the NRA's interest).
Oh yeah, by the way: the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution gives no right or protection whatsoever, to the manufacture and sale of firearms... read it again if you like: there's absolutely nothing in it that protects that industry, or even mentions the manufacture and sale of firearms.
No more than the 1st Amendment, and it's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, mentions or protects in any way, the giving of money to Congresspersons or government officials, by the NRA or anybody else.
The strange comment I read here was that the lack of info on the types of guns used is due to some NRA conspiracy.
Just the opposite IMHO. Usually the media screams "assault weapon" in cases where it turns out that is not the case (like Oakland). I think they just don't want egg on their faces.
Oh, and to the person said that Obama has not proposed any banning of guns, it is on the whitehouse website, Holder proposed reinstituting the AWB, and HCR has as well.
Finally, to all of you that think that any pro 2A people are right wing gun nuts, come on over to the Guns forum at the Democratic Underground. Go ahead and tell everyone your logic for gun control. You will likely see a surprising response.