Quote:
|
Why does the press feel such a strong need to support the anti-gunners of this country?
|
Short form:
#1:
it's profitable
#2:
they are true believers in the cause, and see #1.
Controversy generates interest. Interest generates readers. Readers generate profit. Out side of the true believers its really just that simple.
For those I call true believers, its virtually dogma that guns=bad.
The more cynical of them believe guns (in the hands of anyone they don't own) =bad. Police, military, private security (theirs) are ok with guns, just no one else.
back in the early 80s, when Time magazine was beginning to really beat the drum about the "gun problem" in this country, and long before the assault weapon hysteria began, Time wrote an editorial in which they said (essentially) that while a news magazine should remain impartial, there were some issues that were too big for them to remain impartial, and they were taking a side. Gun ownership was such an issue, and the side they chose was against private gun ownership.
They did say that in print. Once, anyway, I remember reading it. For saying that, being honest (once, anyway, even if they did do it where it was difficult to notice) I respect them. But ONLY for that. Not for ANYTHING else.
Yellow Journalism is still alive and well today. They're more subtle about it than they were in the days when that phrase was coined, and they use a different name today. Today, they call it "responsible reporting"....among other names...