As is by now abundantly clear, the mainstream media lefties don’t have the slightest idea what they’re talking about when it comes to firearms. Many, probably most, are simply too frightened of inanimate objects ever to achieve even a passing journalistic familiarity with guns and, besides, their smug moralism in the pursuit and advocacy of unilateral disarmament would never permit them to become confused by, you know, facts. There’s a narrative, featuring themselves as heroes, and by God they’re sticking to it.
And who better to stick to it than Howard Kurtz, the former media critic of the Washington Post, now with the Daily Beast?
There was certainly a media agenda during the battle for civil rights in the late 1950s and 1960s. Television helped shine a spotlight on Alabama Gov. George Wallace and other Southern politicians who were fighting to preserve a segregationist society. News organizations were accused of being liberal, but they were on the right side of history in exposing practices that were fundamentally wrong. Rosa Parks’s refusal to move to the back of the bus would have been for naught had the media not made her a symbol of racial injustice.
In more subtle fashion, the media have led a national conversation about gay marriage, which as recently as 2004 was deemed politically unthinkable. Now it is legal in nine states, the last three of which adopted new laws in popular referenda last month. Again the press was accused of taking the liberal side, but sometimes that consisted of interviewing newly married gay and lesbian couples, who didn’t seem threatening to anyone. Whether the media changed the culture or lagged it, they were not missing in action.
So much for “objective journalism,” but at least Kurtz is now frank about what journalism’s aims should be. And now he and his fellows have got the firearms industry in their crosshairs, so to speak:
Imagine if the media devoted to the gun issue a fraction of the airtime and column inches lavished on David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelley. The questions about how to grapple with our gun culture would be inescapable.
And — leaving aside the media’s inability to define an “assault weapon” (to them, every gun is an assault weapon), and complete lack of understanding of what the word “semi-automatic” means — what might some of those questions be? Kurtz supplies one:
Should Jared Loughner have been able to obtain 30 rounds of ammunition to kill six people and wound Gabby Giffords, or should there be limits on high-magazine clips?
You know what they say about journalism: You tend to believe it until it’s about something you actually know.