Tennessean: Private sale; also, anyone have contact with Bill Goodman re: gun show?

[Capbyrd]

Hey, I done stuck up fer him a time or two.

- OS

Wasn't directed at you. Moreso at the people that just flat call him a liberal or whatever and accuse him of things and they dont even know the guy. None of them work in journalism or the media and they don't understand how hard it is to write a TRULY unbiased piece. They also seem to be actively looking for some part of his article to scrutinize as being bias. One could easily do the same thing the other direction if they were so inclined.

[TMF]

They also seem to be actively looking for some part of his article to scrutinize as being bias. One could easily do the same thing the other direction if they were so inclined.

^ As much as it may hurt our brains to think like a liberal, if you could put yourself in that place whilst reading the article you might find it biased in the other direction.

[QuietDan]

Regarding a statement by OhShoot:

really oughtta take this back to the main thread, methinks, it's much livelier:

Tennessean: Private sale; also, anyone have contact with Bill Goodman re: gun show?

Well, I say leave the man [Mr Brian Haas) alone. Everybody's got to eat, and Mr Haas eats from his writing. I imagine there are days when he kicks the wall, but if he has rent or a mortgage, a car-payment, and perhaps a wife and kids, he cannot say 'the hell with you all' and just quit his job.

It's really not Mr Haas' fault that his editor (un-named and unknown to us) is apparently a Marxist ideologue (and it's not an ad hominem attack if it is true, nor is it an ad hominem attack when qualified by 'apparently,' suggesting it is possible and is therefore an opinion). I imagine Mr Haas did not pick the headline. I imagine Mr Haas did not pick the photo of the stereotypical Tennessee backwoods shotgunner character. I imagine Mr Haas did not select the low angled picture of the counter-top transaction, photographed to be sinister looking, with religio/racist overtones too clear to be accidental. Editors do the picking, and the picking of the trappings of the story, in headline and photo selection, is clearly biased. And, more disappointingly, these biases are executed in a subtle manner, allowing all to maintain plausible deniability. "We're not really biased, it's all an accident and a mis-perception."

I also note with regret no quotes from the Founding Fathers, nor Supreme Court decisions, either for or against.

As far as Mr Haas taking a "fair and balanced" approach, it's not so much for him to judge, protest as much as he likes. He is, rather, a product of his upbringing and training and cannot objectively measure his own balance. He may feel or think he is balanced, but you can't truly measure yourself objectively. Rather, it is more for his audience to judge, and right now I'm thinking this story is a Fail on the "fair and balanced" front.

To not talk with Mr Haas on this forum as he prepares a gun story is, in military terms, "to yield the field to the adversary." To not talk to Mr Haas does not mean that his editor will not assign the story or that Mr Haas will not write the story. They'll just be forced to interview only anti-gun people and no pro-gun facts will make it into the story. Just because you don't win all the battles doesn't mean you don't keep fighting the war. I see bits & pieces of our discussions here echoed and reflected in Mr Haas' story. Given the nature of the leftist leadership of the Tennessean (and it's not 'ad hominem' if it's true . . . ), we got just about as much out of the article as we could expect.

There are tons and tons of comments on the story on the Tennessean's website, and a lot of them reflect the facts of the issue, and many of the rest, as predicted, are almost completely uninformed comments from the puppy-hugger brigade who put in no thought and no research, but plenty of feeeeeeelings, in their posts. Other informed individuals are correcting the comments-in-error, and I hope some of those corrections are coming from people who post here.

God Bless you all. I doubt this will be the last gun story in the Tennessean.

(Originally posted on another thread at 1-22-2012 @ 10:37 p.m.)

[daddyo]

I don't have those quotes and unfortunately don't have time to research it right now. I could be mistaken in thinking there was Founding Father debate on the issue. If that is the case, I apologize.

I, for one, would be very interested in reading any quotes by the founders advocating gun control.

[Raoul]

It's humorous to me that we all think the press should be fair and balaced. I'm guilty of it also. That's probably never been the case. Nothing sells advertising better than controversy, slander, or innuendo.

[1pointofview]

Oh, I understand and spot-on with the 'stache. The thing is, we wanted a few photos for this story and we were really hoping for the gun show to be a good source for it. Unfortunately, we got the boot, so we took what we could get quickly.

We were really hoping to get a nice shot of folks just doing their thing at the gun show. I know the photographer was disappointed with what we got there that day as well.

I remember a county commission meeting in Franklin that was covered by the tennessean. The hall was packed with nicely dressed men and women yet I sat there and watched the tennessean photographer follow this one guy with a tshirt that had the "god, guns and freedom" logo on it. Why would they do that? Well since I watched it happen and then read the story the next day I believe it was purely out of building upon a stereotype. A stereotype that tries to paint anything right wing as fringe logo shirt wearing wackos while ignoring the other 95% who do not look the part of what the paper is trying to portray. When I walk in to a gun store I would say 70% of who I see are nicely dressed with the remainder you camo wearing backwoods types.

I simply think you are being disingenuous (with all due respect) if you don't think that the paper is not worried more about building a narrative through conjecture instead of being fully objective.

[bigwakes]

Oh I take no offense at all. I respect reason and well-thought-out responses and I get that more often than not here. There are some who just want to toss grenades in my direction, which is fine. In this business you learn early that if you don't have a spine, you're not going to last.

We don't usually hear from too many folks who are really, really super-duper happy about our stories. Normally it's folks who just want to put us on blast.

Part of the problems with newspapers though, is they rarely address their critics or dialogue with them. I'm in favor of it. I think the public and the media both can learn from it, even if it can get a bit ugly at times.

I will certainly give you credit for getting on here and having a discussion in a way that I have never seen a journalist do. Maybe this thread is why we don't see it very often.

And you are correct, I have probably read plenty of articles I liked, but only get truly stirred up by the ones I don't.

[Guest brianhaas]

It's humorous to me that we all think the press should be fair and balaced. I'm guilty of it also. That's probably never been the case. Nothing sells advertising better than controversy, slander, or innuendo.

This is a hilarious canard. I don't write stories to sell papers or get clicks. I get paid the same if I write one story a month that nobody reads or if I write 100 stories a week that make the papers fly off shelves.

We have no idea how many papers we sell on a daily basis (we do look at aggregate results from time to time though), so going into stories with that motivation would be extremely stupid.

I'll cop to controversy, yes. We like writing about controversy. What, are we supposed to write stories about how everybody agrees on things? Who the hell would read that and what purpose would it serve? Controversy works to bring important public issues to light, allows citizens to weigh the evidence and hopefully prompts them to take positions and action that they deem appropriate.

Yes, our job is dependent on conflict and controversy. I'm not sure what the alternative would be.

[bigwakes]

I guess decorum and maintaining a civilized manner while discussing things we disagree with is no longer de rigueur.

Really? You're going to argue against curtailing the 2nd Amendment but you're all for bashing the 1st?

Your right, illegal was the wrong words. I guess I should have said it should be the journalists moral responsibility to not mislead the reader. I tried a test on my wife, a gun owner, and had her read the article. I asked where she thought Loughner and the VA Tech shooter got their weapons and she said she assumed they were purchased illegally from the last statement.

[Guest brianhaas]

I remember a county commission meeting in Franklin that was covered by the tennessean. The hall was packed with nicely dressed men and women yet I sat there and watched the tennessean photographer follow this one guy with a tshirt that had the "god, guns and freedom" logo on it. Why would they do that? Well since I watched it happen and then read the story the next day I believe it was purely out of building upon a stereotype. A stereotype that tries to paint anything right wing as fringe logo shirt wearing wackos while ignoring the other 95% who do not look the part of what the paper is trying to portray. When I walk in to a gun store I would say 70% of who I see are nicely dressed with the remainder you camo wearing backwoods types.

I can't be asked to speak for an individual photographer I don't know on a story I don't know about, much less our entire paper or industry. Photographers have a duty to obtain compelling and informative photos to help illustrate a story. I have no idea what the decision was in that case. Perhaps the gentleman in the T-shirt was particularly interesting or compelling. I don't know the circumstances and can't speak to it.

I simply think you are being disingenuous (with all due respect) if you don't think that the paper is not worried more about building a narrative through conjecture instead of being fully objective.

I actually work at the paper. Never has anyone ever suggested anything close to this. Before I wrote this story, my editor and her editor sat with me in a glass office and we went over our objectives with this story. One key point was to include a wide range of sources for the story and not just the "talking head" types.

It's hilarious to hear the conspiracy theories from folks that there's some well-coordinated effort to upend their particular cause (particularly since we hear it from the right and the left and everywhere in between). We can barely manage to put the damn paper out every day. Half the time, I don't know what the person next to me is working on. Sometimes the editors have no clue what is going on.

We're not some inhuman, well-oiled propaganda machine designed to subvert people's values and replace them with some sort of collectivist ideal that we all agreed upon. We can rarely agree on where to have lunch on a given day.

The newsroom is also far more politically diverse than you might think. We have some very pro gun folks, some folks who are comfortable with guns and some folks who hate guns. We have a wide range on a whole host of issues here. I know, I talk to these folks daily and we're always discussing current events.

This is The Tennessean we're talking about here. We're a mix of good ol' boys (and girls) who have the Cumberland River running through their veins, carpetbagging northerners (I suppose I'd be part of this group, being from Michigan), southern transplants, West Coast refugees, etc.

We can't agree on crap. We have trouble coordinating some of the most basic tasks a newspaper requires to function.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY PENS IN THE BUILDING.

I'm serious about that last part. We don't have any pens. We ran out. And we didn't order more.

Tell me that's some sort of coordinated attack machine with a straight face.

[TMF]

Yes, our job is dependent on conflict and controversy. I'm not sure what the alternative would be.

It would be AFN/Pentagon channel. If you ever want to know what real fake journalism looks like start watching that garbage.

Controversy does sell. I'm sure we're all guilty of it; usually it's the sensational teasers that peak my interest on Yahoo to where I end up reading the story, then try to figure out why I'm beginning to care about the goings-on of the Kardashians.

[G27]

I don't have those quotes and unfortunately don't have time to research it right now. I could be mistaken in thinking there was Founding Father debate on the issue. If that is the case, I apologize.

I undertand, and forgive me, but my point stands - you claimed that the anti-gun folks could post these quotes back one-for-one, essentially, yet I'm unfamiliar with them, and frankly, that's a tenet to your point here. Unless one can show these quotes to counter all the quotes we are aware of (as linked above, post #108, for example), it seems we know rather well exactly what the founders had in mind wrt 2A.

To say otherwise, claiming the gun control advocates can show similar but opposite quotes without posting or linking to them actually seems to indicate a bias on your part.

Again, I'm not trying to bust your balls here, i cannot imagine how difficult it must to remove bias from something you have to research and write - I'm simply saying that we have a huge amount of evidence that the founding fathers wished for us to have the right as individuals to keep and bare arms, and that they considered this a vital aspect of liberty (so much so it's second in the BoR). If the gun control advocates have similar but opposite quotes, and that's the basis for our allegedly 'not knowing the founders' intent', then we need to see them.

Thanks,

CA

[daddyo]

This is a hilarious canard. I don't write stories to sell papers or get clicks. I get paid the same if I write one story a month that nobody reads or if I write 100 stories a week that make the papers fly off shelves.

We have no idea how many papers we sell on a daily basis (we do look at aggregate results from time to time though), so going into stories with that motivation would be extremely stupid.

I'll cop to controversy, yes. We like writing about controversy. What, are we supposed to write stories about how everybody agrees on things? Who the hell would read that and what purpose would it serve? Controversy works to bring important public issues to light, allows citizens to weigh the evidence and hopefully prompts them to take positions and action that they deem appropriate.

Yes, our job is dependent on conflict and controversy. I'm not sure what the alternative would be.

It seems to me that The Tennessean takes it a step further and likes to CREATE controversy.

[DMark]

[Guest brianhaas]

It seems to me that The Tennessean takes it a step further and likes to CREATE controversy.

Can you provide some examples? In this case, the Bloomberg report caught my attention and I wanted to write a story about the issue, particularly since there is federal legislation proposed right now that could require checks in private sales. In other words, crap is going on with this issue, right now.

[creeky]

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY PENS IN THE BUILDING.

I have 20 + years in the printing industry, last 8 involved directly with gravure Newspaper side of things. He's not kidding guys. I believe him... they don't have pens.

With the Ink and Paper increases in the last couple of years, not to mention the declining circ. rates across the country and the reduction in advertising budgets for print he's lucky he's not sitting on a milk crate typing on an Old Mac Plus on a card table.

I read the article, better than I expected.

Our job in the media is to get ahead of these debates and promote discussion on issues like this.

I would prefer it if the media were just to present me with the facts. I believe our society is able to discuss topics (like Guns, Abortion, Religion, etc.) without needing prodding to do so.

It would have been nice to have seen a least a brief mention about the DOJ's recent troubles in allowing guns to fall into criminal's hands.

[Guest brianhaas]

I would prefer it if the media were just to present me with the facts. I believe our society is able to discuss topics (like Guns, Abortion, Religion, etc.) without needing prodding to do so.

I get this a lot. My story was full of facts, not sure what you think was missing. If you want me to just produce "facts" that confirm your particular believes, it ain't gonna happen. Our job is to try and present all sides of the issue, as best as possible so that people can evaluate all sides of the issue and come up with their own conclusions.

How do you present the facts of an issue like this without showing the differing views? I have no idea what that story would even look like.

[daddyo]

I get this a lot. My story was full of facts, not sure what you think was missing. If you want me to just produce "facts" that confirm your particular believes, it ain't gonna happen. Our job is to try and present all sides of the issue, as best as possible so that people can evaluate all sides of the issue and come up with their own conclusions.

How do you present the facts of an issue like this without showing the differing views? I have no idea what that story would even look like.

So, you think what Adam Dread said was "fact"?

[Hershmeister]

I get this a lot. My story was full of facts, not sure what you think was missing. If you want me to just produce "facts" that confirm your particular believes, it ain't gonna happen. Our job is to try and present all sides of the issue, as best as possible so that people can evaluate all sides of the issue and come up with their own conclusions.

How do you present the facts of an issue like this without showing the differing views? I have no idea what that story would even look like.

Brian - i think you just nailed the disconnect many of us have.

The society of professional journalists code of ethics lists "Seek Truth and Report it" as its first guideline. Not report all sides of an issue, but report the truth. This may and should include presenting opposing viewpoints, but it does not make a viewpoint the same as the Truth.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[Guest brianhaas]

So, you think what Adam Dread said was "fact"?

No, I don't and I don't present it in the story as such. Nor do I present what people on the opposing side present as "fact".

The FACT is, people disagree on this issue. And I gave a pretty good sampling of exactly what those disagreements are. Those are the facts, the presentation of what people are saying about this issue.

Here are the facts: Bloomberg did a report slamming, in part, Tennessee. There's a proposed bill that would force background checks. There is widespread disagreement on this issue, with a lot of folks saying the laws are working as intended. In spite of this push, the march has been toward looser gun restrictions as shown by the host of examples I showed (guns in the workplace, expansions of castle doctrine, etc.).

Within those facts, I presented differing views on the matter. It's standard journalism.

[Guest brianhaas]

Brian - i think you just nailed the disconnect many of us have.

The society of professional journalists code of ethics lists "Seek Truth and Report it" as its first guideline. Not report all sides of an issue, but report the truth. This may and should include presenting opposing viewpoints, but it does not make a viewpoint the same as the Truth.

Society of Professional Journalists: SPJ Code of Ethics

Ok, what truth did I somehow miss then?

[bigwakes]

I get this a lot. My story was full of facts, not sure what you think was missing. If you want me to just produce "facts" that confirm your particular believes, it ain't gonna happen. Our job is to try and present all sides of the issue, as best as possible so that people can evaluate all sides of the issue and come up with their own conclusions.

How do you present the facts of an issue like this without showing the differing views? I have no idea what that story would even look like.

I think when statistics are valuable they are used to bring home a point, unless of coures the statistics don't make the point you are looking for. For instance I found these interesting FACTS on Wikipedia with links to actual studies: Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which states:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that only 0.8% of prison inmates reported acquiring firearms used in their crimes "At a gun show," with repeat offenders less likely than first-time offenders to report acquiring firearms from a retail source, gun show or flea market. This 2001 study examined data from a 1997 Department of Justice survey of more than 18,000 federal and state prison inmates in 1,409 State prisons and 127 Federal prisons.^[20][21] The remaining 99.2% of inmates reported obtaining firearms from other sources, including "From a friend/family member" (36.8%), "Off the street/from a drug dealer" (20.9%), "From a fence/black market source" (9.6%), "From a pawnshop," "From a flea market," "From the victim," or "In a burglary." 9% of inmates replied "Don't Know/Other" to the question of where they acquired a firearm and 4.4% refused to answer.^[21] The Department of Justice did not attempt to verify the firearms reported in the survey or trace them to determine their chain of possession from original retail sale to the time they were transferred to the inmates surveyed (in cases where inmates were not the original retail purchaser).^[22]

I'm certain Wiki is probably not the best source for quoting in an article, but why not go to their source and quote our government's own study with some actual facts?

I understand the concept of using differing opinions on a subject, but actual facts can and should be reported with the opinions... of course this is just my opinion.

[Guest brianhaas]

I think when statistics are valuable they are used to bring home a point, unless of coures the statistics don't make the point you are looking for. For instance I found these interesting FACTS on Wikipedia with links to actual studies: Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which states:

I'm certain Wiki is probably not the best source for quoting in an article, but why not go to their source and quote our government's own study with some actual facts?

I understand the concept of using differing opinions on a subject, but actual facts can and should be reported with the opinions... of course this is just my opinion.

OK, looking at some of the reports in that Wiki article comes this gems: "Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun shows."

The other study you cite in there is based solely on a survey of inmates in 1997 -- one year of self-reported data.

Stats can be very tricky on these stories and if you pick one source over another, you can run into the same claims of bias from every angle.

[bigwakes]

OK, looking at some of the reports in that Wiki article comes this gems: "Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun shows."

The other study you cite in there is based solely on a survey of inmates in 1997 -- one year of self-reported data.

Stats can be very tricky on these stories and if you pick one source over another, you can run into the same claims of bias from every angle.

I saw those statistics too, but left them out after going to the source here: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun%202000.pdf

On page 27 of this 71 page document it states very clearly that private sales at gun shows were not tracked since it's nearly impossible to track the sale without a paper trail. Since I was trying to stay on topic with our discussion of private sales I felt that study was irrelevant. Am I off base in making that assumption with the given information that private sales were not included in the study?

[mcurrier]

Sorry, but quoting idiots like Adam Dread, who know NOTHING about self-defense and responsible carry, does nothing for the credibility of the article. I didn't even bother to read the rest of it when I saw his name.

FAIL.

True. Dread is a big Randy Rayburn buddy.