This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
The
Media and Censorship by
Leroy Pyle Cops
learn early in their careers that truth, accuracy, and facts, are not real high
on the list of priorities of a newspaper or TV editor! I remember as a young
midnighter fresh out of the academy making my first good arrest of an auto theft
suspect. It involved a Corvette wrapped around a telephone pole, so the great
photo opportunity got me an interview. In that evening's newspaper, I would not
have recognized the story without the photograph! I
learned then, and the lesson has been reinforced repeatedly over the years, that
the main objective of the media is to sell their wares. A good photo and an
exciting tale will sell the paper. The facts are relegated to the police report
where the emphasis is on accuracy and the truth. An
example I like to use is a morning's TV news that had a report of two policemen
shooting a man who pointed a gun at them. Details were not available, as the
investigation was in progress (the police are required to be factual) but to
"make" a story, the narration was emphasized by statements from
witnesses that "the police failed to identify themselves" before
shooting and questions about the number of shots the policemen took at the
suspect pointing the gun. How
ludicrous from a policeman's point of view. How absurd from the point of view of
anyone who has ever been in the position of looking down the barrel of a gun.
How could there be any requirement to say ANYTHING when someone points a gun at
you? And how DO you judge when sufficient shots have stopped that threat? But
there is no requirement that a news report be logical or accurate. That reporter
wanted to create sound bites that would attract his editor and force his story
onto the news. He was furthering HIS personal views and making HIS personal
reputation and attempting to secure HIS future in the news industry. What
difference to him how it might affect the reputation of the police, in general,
or those officers in particular? I
am sure that any law enforcement officer can relate a variety of similar
episodes occurring during his or her career. And law enforcement personnel
should be first to understand the frustration felt by gun owners with the media
censorship that is presented on a daily basis across our nation. At
one of the annual meetings of the National Rifle Association I attended, it was
reported that the three major networks were refusing to run a paid advertisement
by the N.R.A. The ad addresses the need for reform in our criminal justice
system. Many of you may have seen the ad, but not if you live in Washington,
D.C. If a resident of our Nation's Capital, a noted crime capital, you had to
watch the ad as reprinted in the newspaper! The
TV ad presents a heated debate between a politician and his staff. Violent crime
is the topic, and he asks, "What can we tell the voters?" "How
about the truth?" suggests one aide. "We're not keeping violent
criminals in prison." "The
average criminal set free will commit 187 more crimes a year.� says another
aide. "We're
out of prison space." the politician says. "Then
build more." says an aide. "Good people are getting hurt, bad." The
entire staff hammers the politician with the facts, all of which point toward
meaningful criminal justice reform, until he shouts, "Stop giving me facts,
and start giving me headlines!" A
youngish looking aide enters the room during the last statement. "How about
another gun control law?" he asks. The scene then switches to the
politician announcing his grand gun control plan on television as a criminal
watches and begins laughing at the speech. N.R.A.'s
media relations� representative reports that in refusing the ad, Allan Horlick
of WRC-TV did not provide written explanation for rejection of the commercial.
Sandra Butler-Jones of WUSA-TV wrote, "It is our right and privilege, for
reasons unto ourselves, to reject the ads." WJLA-TV's Carol Powell said the
ads "tend to inflame or incite unreasoned public responses" and
present "a series of facts irrelevant to the efficacy of gun control." In
full-page ads in major newspapers, N.R.A. called these stations to task.
"Where's the right to free speech, right here in the world's cradle of
freedom?" N.R.A. asked. "Access to public airwaves should be available
to everyone who presents a responsible viewpoint. That should include
law-abiding gun owners. Maybe these stations would be reminded of that fact if
their operating licenses were legally challenged by the full resources of the
National Rifle Association of America." "Refusal
to air commercials that depict the failure of our criminal justice system and
meaningful remedies to that breakdown is not only suppression of speech,"
said NRA-ILA chief lobbyist James Jay Baker. "It is a direct insult to the
good people of the nation's capital who are plagued as much by ineffective
solutions to violent crime as they are by crime itself." I
am reminded, too, of another media element that treats gun owners and law
enforcement with similar disdain. Time Magazine refused to run an N.R.A. ad
depicting freedom violations in China after the Tiananmen Square tragedy. The ad
cited part of the Second Amendment and argued that the right to bear arms is a
protection against "tyranny." Time
Warner will take every opportunity to deny you your Second Amendment Rights. The
very same conglomerate that brought us Ice-T and the "Cop Killer"
lyrics without regard for the safety of law enforcement professionals will stop
at nothing in the pursuit of profit. Please consider joining with Second
Amendment organizations and the N.R.A. in opposing the "tyranny" of
the media whenever they pose a threat to you OR your rights. "I'd
like to take a cop out in
the parking lot and shoot him in
his m______-f______ face," "Die,
pig, die. F___ the police. I
know your family's grievin." F___'em." Leroy
Pyle is a career police officer, |
||||||||||
