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

[Guest bkelm18]

The title of the article is quite slanted. It's one thing to have a teaser title, but this one presupposes that there aren't adequate laws, and that Sir is opinion. For an uneducated reader their mind is made up for them before they even read word one of the article.

I've been open-minded from the start, and I understand that it's difficult to present seemingly unbiased material when one side of the argument (anti-gun) is populated by loonies that don't have an understanding of how our current gun laws work but want restrictions added which target law-abiders and doesn't address the criminal element. I get that it's not easy to not look biased. I'm sure from the anti-gun side they are reading it as biased for guns (well, maybe not this article but one of the previous ones).

With that said, the title of the article alone is so very obvious in regards to bias. The choice of photos was in line with the stereo-type of gun-toting redneck. I mean, I've been to plenty of gun shows and there are lots of people who aren't head-to-toe in Realtree. Nothing against Realtree camo, but this plays directly into the image that liberals present... uneducated backwoods types that shouldn't own guns in the first place. It's what allows them to be so dismissive of 2nd Amendment advocates in the media.

As much as I appreciate Mr. Haas' efforts to collect data here in order to provide an unbiased article, I think it is clear that's not what we have. Too bad.

France seems to have 5 times the gun ownership of the UK, so they should go there instead, wouldn't even have to learn Frog.

Well, I don't really see it as such. It is, as you way, a teaser, but it's exactly what pro background checkers believe -- not enough (anti) gun laws.

- OS

Now correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be confusing this with something else on the interwebs, but I thought I read that the writers don't actually choose the title of their article? Someone else at the paper does. I could be off on that.

[Lumber_Jack]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be confusing this with something else on the interwebs, but I thought I read that the writers don't actually choose the title of their article? Someone else at the paper does. I could be off on that.

I've heard similar reports. I also have no knowledge of its validity thought

[TMF]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be confusing this with something else on the interwebs, but I thought I read that the writers don't actually choose the title of their article? Someone else at the paper does. I could be off on that.

I would say that it is very likely he didn't come up with the title or have final authority on it as well as the choice of photos used. However, his name is attached to the article so he gets to assume responsibility. Either way, it skews the story from the get-go.

[Guest bkelm18]

I would say that it is very likely he didn't come up with the title or have final authority on it as well as the choice of photos used. However, his name is attached to the article so he gets to assume responsibility. Either way, it skews the story from the get-go.

Oh I don't disagree that the title is inappropriate. I just meant to give him some ounce of credit if indeed the title was not his. As for the story, it is what it is. I didn't find it terribly biased, these writers are at the mercy of the people who are willing to be interviewed as well as the time constraints placed on them by their editors. It is the Tennessean afterall.

[TMF]

Oh I don't disagree that the title is inappropriate. I just meant to give him some ounce of credit if indeed the title was not his. As for the story, it is what it is. I didn't find it terribly biased, these writers are at the mercy of the people who are willing to be interviewed as well as the time constraints placed on them by their editors. It is the Tennessean afterall.

I didn't think the article overall was biased, with the exception of the final quote used (since it references a situation that evokes emotion and has nothing to do with the actual transfer of firearms between private citizens). The title of the article and the photo of Cletus was what put me off... but maybe I'm wrong... maybe Big Hungry Joe was around for some of the photos and they left him out because it would look too obvious. I dunno, I might be looking too much into it but it smells bad.

[Oh Shoot]

When you consider "bias" in the article, consider mainstream opinion both across TN and the nation.

I dare say if you ran a state or nationwide referendum about enacting private checks, the vote would be yes.

Carry at schools? No / Parking lot carry? No / Alcohol serving places? No / etc.

Matter of fact, I'd opine that you could run the question of whether folks should be allowed to carry at all, and it might well be no. Remember, we HCPers are a whopping 5% of the TN population, maybe 10% tops of all adults eligible to get one.

About the only thing that the majority of Americans agree on gun wise, is that everybody should be able to own one. Hell, probably at least a quarter of the people who actually own firearms would vote the same way as above. All these online polls don't mean a hill of beans, put it as a referendum on regular polling elections and you'd likely get some eye openers.

Of course there are reasons that the majority doesn't necessarily rule on any issue in the US, not even to elect a president. And that's quite often a very good thing. But you have to understand that this isn't necessarily some small but particularly vocal minority out there we're up against, and that the article features.

If you only hang with like minded folks, you can get a false sense of just what the mainstream thinks overall.

- OS

Edited January 23, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest brianhaas]

Thanks for the feedback, all, I appreciate it. As to one question raised here, no I do not write headlines on stories like these. I do SOME headlines, but typically only on web postings of breaking news.

As for the folks screaming bias, please point out actual evidence of bias instead of simply yelling the word. I literally measured the column inches I devoted to each side to make sure that I tried to give everyone a fairly equal say in the matter as much as possible.

This type of quote is what I'm talking about:

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.

Really? This is what I'm up against? There is no way to overcome claims of bias if simply including a source you guys don't like is somehow evidence of that.

Give me some examples of how the story is biased. Hell, maybe I'll learn a thing or two from it.

[daddyo]

Thanks for the feedback, all, I appreciate it. As to one question raised here, no I do not write headlines on stories like these. I do SOME headlines, but typically only on web postings of breaking news.

As for the folks screaming bias, please point out actual evidence of bias instead of simply yelling the word. I literally measured the column inches I devoted to each side to make sure that I tried to give everyone a fairly equal say in the matter as much as possible.

This type of quote is what I'm talking about:

Really? This is what I'm up against? There is no way to overcome claims of bias if simply including a source you guys don't like is somehow evidence of that.

Give me some examples of how the story is biased. Hell, maybe I'll learn a thing or two from it.

I would help immensely if you would quote people who actually know something about the issue and speak from a position of common sense and logic. I have had written communication with Adam Dread, and when he was asked to validate his absurd assertions regarding things like the restaurant carry bill (claiming that there would be "blood in the streets" if the bill was passed into law), he retreated to a position of "I don't have any facts to prove what I'm saying, it's my opinion".

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, he is IGNORANT of the issue and his views are not to be trusted.

[bigwakes]

Thanks for the feedback, all, I appreciate it. As to one question raised here, no I do not write headlines on stories like these. I do SOME headlines, but typically only on web postings of breaking news.

As for the folks screaming bias, please point out actual evidence of bias instead of simply yelling the word. I literally measured the column inches I devoted to each side to make sure that I tried to give everyone a fairly equal say in the matter as much as possible.

This type of quote is what I'm talking about:

Really? This is what I'm up against? There is no way to overcome claims of bias if simply including a source you guys don't like is somehow evidence of that.

Give me some examples of how the story is biased. Hell, maybe I'll learn a thing or two from it.

How about ending your article with:

“The sweet spot is letting law-abiding citizens buy the guns they want,” Glaze said. “While tightening the background check system to make sure the next Jared Loughner, the next Virginia Tech massacre doesn’t happen.’’

Implying that Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter somehow purchased their weapons from a gun show or private sale. Both of those criminals legally purchased their weapons and you have intentionally implied that they were purchased illegally. You sir are not a journalist, it should be illegal to mislead people this way. Unfortunately it's not criminal to spue the crap that I continually see from the Tennessean.

[Guest bkelm18]

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

Implying that Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter somehow purchased their weapons from a gun show or private sale. Both of those criminals legally purchased their weapons and you have intentionally implied that they were purchased illegally. You sir are not a journalist, it should be illegal to mislead people this way. Unfortunately it's not criminal to spue the crap that I continually see from the Tennessean.

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

Edited January 23, 2012 by bkelm18

[G27]

Hey Brian, not trying to be aggressive here, but one of your primary arguments in this thread is essentially (paraphrased) 'no one knows what the founding fathers meant by the 2A ', you said so here:

Just because you guys believe you know the intents of the founders (and believe me, the other side will bust out just as many quotes from them on these issues), does not mean that it is a settled political or legal phenomenon TODAY.

This is why I'm asking again for the quotes you alluded to above - I'm unfamiliar with really any quotes by our founding fathers that gun control advocates could use to strengthen their position. Since you brought this up as a foundational support to us not 'knowing the intents of the founders', I'd like to see those quotes, please.

As we have many examples of the quotes from the founders supporting virtually unrestricted gun rights for the individual, I'm puzzled by the statement you made. And if there are none (or they aren't as direct as those listed in this thread alone for the rights of individual gun ownership), then I'd suggest we absolutely DO know what the founding fathers had in mind wrt gun rights for the individual.

Whether you wish to promote their thoughts in your articles or not is your business, but unless you can show me some quotes like you mentioned above, I'd have to say that I think it's rather disingenuous of you to claim otherwise...

Thanks,

CA

[TMF]

Thanks for the feedback, all, I appreciate it. As to one question raised here, no I do not write headlines on stories like these. I do SOME headlines, but typically only on web postings of breaking news.

As for the folks screaming bias, please point out actual evidence of bias instead of simply yelling the word. I literally measured the column inches I devoted to each side to make sure that I tried to give everyone a fairly equal say in the matter as much as possible.

This type of quote is what I'm talking about:

Really? This is what I'm up against? There is no way to overcome claims of bias if simply including a source you guys don't like is somehow evidence of that.

Give me some examples of how the story is biased. Hell, maybe I'll learn a thing or two from it.

Examples:

1. The title (it presupposes there aren't adequate gun laws which is opinion. The only opinions in a news article should be from the people interviewed, not by the news outlet, unless it's a editorial piece).

2. Using Cletus for the featured picture. (It's stereotypical. I get that he wasn't a plant or anything, but it looks like something off peopleofwalmart.com. There are actually normal people that shop there, but when you feature photos of the fringe it presents only one image.)

3. The final quote used in the article attempts to tie the Laughner shooting with this supposed "loophole". The fact is that he had a background check when he purchased his weapon from an actual firearms dealer. I understand that this is a quote and opinion from someone interviewed, but it is fundamentally incorrect. Something so easily debunked from being fact shouldn't be in an article meant to inform.

Other than that I thought it represented both sides well. I know that I'm not going to agree with the other side long before I see it in print. But this is a matter of opinion; someone who has a different opinion is just as valid as I. So long as the reasonable argument from both sides is presented I'm not going to cry foul.

Edited January 23, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Guest brianhaas]

How about ending your article with:

Implying that Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter somehow purchased their weapons from a gun show or private sale. Both of those criminals legally purchased their weapons and you have intentionally implied that they were purchased illegally. You sir are not a journalist, it should be illegal to mislead people this way. Unfortunately it's not criminal to spue the crap that I continually see from the Tennessean.

OK, that's a quote. I did not personally say that, Glaze did. I have not intentionally implied anything.

And it's interesting that you're implying that it's a shame we can't somehow suspend the First Amendment because you don't like what someone said about the Second Amendment.

[Guest brianhaas]

Examples:

1. The title (it presupposes there aren't adequate gun laws which is opinion. The only opinions in a news article should be from the people interviewed, not by the news outlet, unless it's a editorial piece).

I didn't write that, but the story focuses heavily on how there are few laws regulating private sales. And that there are folks actively pushing (with proposed legislation even) to add to those laws. So regardless of whether you like it, it's accurate in that context. It could have been clarified, perhaps, to say "TN private gun sale laws, or lack thereof..." Which would have been more accurate, but I don't write the headlines and maybe there wasn't room in the paper for it. I'm not sure.

2. Using Cletus for the featured picture. (It's stereotypical. I get that he wasn't a plant or anything, but it looks like something off peopleofwalmart.com. There are actually normal people that shop there, but when you feature photos of the fringe it presents only one image.)

I also have nothing to do with photo selection. BUT, if the gun show didn't eject us from the premises, the photo would have likely been better. We had literally about 10 minutes on the property before they threatened to call Metro Police. And most of that time was negotiating on where we could or couldn't go.

That's the reason we went to the gun shop to get more photos. And the gentleman with the revolver just happened to be the customer that we got.

Our time is very limited here and we spent some good time trying to get good photos. Sometimes we have to take what we can get. This is what we got.

3. The final quote used in the article attempts to tie the Laughner shooting with this supposed "loophole". The fact is that he had a background check when he purchased his weapon from an actual firearms dealer. I understand that this is a quote and opinion from someone interviewed, but it is fundamentally incorrect. Something so easily debunked from being fact shouldn't be in an article meant to inform.

I suppose I simply saw him bringing up Loughner and Va. Tech as examples, in general, of crimes they hope to prevent through the new legislation. When we spoke, he didn't literally believe that those two cases were specifically applicable to this issue, just that they were the most recent high-profile crimes that people would recognize. Perhaps that didn't come through, which would be my fault.

I'll think on this one some more.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, this is the kind of feedback that is constructive and actually helps me to do my job better.

[Guest brianhaas]

Whoops, responded to the wrong thing...

Edited January 23, 2012 by brianhaas
Because I responded to the wrong post about the wrong thing entirely. Monday mornings aren't my strong suit.

[bigwakes]

OK, that's a quote. I did not personally say that, Glaze did. I have not intentionally implied anything.

And it's interesting that you're implying that it's a shame we can't somehow suspend the First Amendment because you don't like what someone said about the Second Amendment.

Your article reminds me of a girl I once knew that would write cards and letters from phrases in a magazine. She would cut out the words and glue them to paper. The thing is, she already knew what she wanted to say before she started finding the right words. I get the opinion that's how journalism is today. We can print whatever we want as long as it's a quote from someone else we are immune to what we print. You decided to close your article with a quote that made the reader be fearful of another massacre. I don't know or care who Glaze is, but you sir made the choice to print a quote that has nothing to do with the topic of private gun sales. You could have just as easily ended the story with all the puppies that killed in southeast Asia. It has NOTHING to do with the story, but does envoke fear to the reader.

[TMF]

That's the reason we went to the gun shop to get more photos. And the gentleman with the revolver just happened to be the customer that we got.

Our time is very limited here and we spent some good time trying to get good photos. Sometimes we have to take what we can get. This is what we got.

Oh, I wasn't talking about the guy with the glorious 'stache at the gun store. If I could grow such an awesome face-mane I would. I was referring to the guy all done up in Realtree Camo sporting the shotgun.

[Guest brianhaas]

Hey Brian, not trying to be aggressive here, but one of your primary arguments in this thread is essentially (paraphrased) 'no one knows what the founding fathers meant by the 2A ', you said so here:

This is why I'm asking again for the quotes you alluded to above - I'm unfamiliar with really any quotes by our founding fathers that gun control advocates could use to strengthen their position. Since you brought this up as a foundational support to us not 'knowing the intents of the founders', I'd like to see those quotes, please.

As we have many examples of the quotes from the founders supporting virtually unrestricted gun rights for the individual, I'm puzzled by the statement you made. And if there are none (or they aren't as direct as those listed in this thread alone for the rights of individual gun ownership), then I'd suggest we absolutely DO know what the founding fathers had in mind wrt gun rights for the individual.

Whether you wish to promote their thoughts in your articles or not is your business, but unless you can show me some quotes like you mentioned above, I'd have to say that I think it's rather disingenuous of you to claim otherwise...

Thanks,

CA

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.

[Guest brianhaas]

Oh, I wasn't talking about the guy with the glorious 'stache at the gun store. If I could grow such an awesome face-mane I would. I was referring to the guy all done up in Realtree Camo sporting the shotgun.

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.

[Guest brianhaas]

Your article reminds me of a girl I once knew that would write cards and letters from phrases in a magazine. She would cut out the words and glue them to paper. The thing is, she already knew what she wanted to say before she started finding the right words. I get the opinion that's how journalism is today. We can print whatever we want as long as it's a quote from someone else we are immune to what we print. You decided to close your article with a quote that made the reader be fearful of another massacre. I don't know or care who Glaze is, but you sir made the choice to print a quote that has nothing to do with the topic of private gun sales. You could have just as easily ended the story with all the puppies that killed in southeast Asia. It has NOTHING to do with the story, but does envoke fear to the reader.

He was talking specifically about preventing tragedies that could be caused by private gun sales by folks who shouldn't have guns.

Journalism isn't like the girl you once knew. And neither am I.

Look, here's the thing. If I wanted to slam the Second Amendment on this issue, here's what I'd do.

I'd find a murder victim who was killed by some dude who got a gun privately and shouldn't have. I'd plaster his wife/children across the front page. I'd quote the Brady folks, Chuck Schumer, and a host of anti-gun groups. I'd include a token quote from the NRA (which isn't even local), then have someone immediately dismiss it.

I wouldn't have sought out REAL gun owners and business people to try and humanize and normalize the conversation. I wouldn't have tried to get stakeholders with a range of thoughts on the matter.

I'd have maximized the anti-gun sentiment and minimized the folks on the other side. And I did neither.

[Oh Shoot]

I don't have those quotes ...

Post 108, just sayin....

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handguns/67681-tennessean-private-sale-also-anyone-have-contact-bill-goodman-re-gun-show-11.html#post849999

[Capbyrd]

I appreciate the fact that you use TGO as a resource Brian and I'm terribly sorry that everyone has become so hostile.

[Oh Shoot]

I appreciate the fact that you use TGO as a resource Brian and I'm terribly sorry that everyone has become so hostile.

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

- OS

[TMF]

I'll think on this one some more.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, this is the kind of feedback that is constructive and actually helps me to do my job better.

Well my questions/concerns have been satisfied. It's easy to find bias when you're looking for it I guess.

As much as we could use this opportunity to beat up on a member of the media for the sins of the industry, I think it would be a better investment to use this as an opportunity give insight to our opinions as well as debunk anti-gun myths (using facts, not Johnny Cochranisms) to a member of said industry. I think it would be beneficial to us even if we think the Tennessean is the Great Satan. So let's be constructive with the criticism please and not devolve into what we often claim the gun grabbers of doing by bringing emotion into it.

[Guest brianhaas]

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.