Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: ABC Hires Gun Control Activist as Firearms Reports

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    "Reports" in the Title Should Have Been "Reporter".

    SAF News Release


    It looks like ABC News has no problem at all with the appearance of bias, now that they've assigned a reporter who used to work for Handgun Control, Inc. to cover firearms-related stories, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

    Washington correspondent Jake Tapper once worked for Handgun Control, according to a piece he wrote when he worked for Salon News. His obvious bias greatly alarms SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

    "This is the same ABC News that rushed to the air this week to report that Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert is under investigation by the Justice Department, when the Justice Department said he wasn't," Gottlieb noted. "This is the same news network that added George Stephanopoulos, a former top aide to anti-gun President Bill Clinton. Now they've got a former staffer for an extremist gun control group reporting on firearms issues.

    "It is no wonder why so many American citizens believe there is an institutional bias in the national press," Gottlieb continued. "MSNBC's Chris Matthews once worked for anti-gun Congressman Tip O'Neill and wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter. NBC's Tim Russert was chief of staff for anti-gun Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and was a counselor for Mario Cuomo, an avowed gun prohibitionist. Does anyone see a pattern here?"

    SAF urges gun owners to express their disappointment to ABC News by e-mail at: support@abcnews.go.com , or via mail to ABC News, 7 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mechanicsville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    548

    Post imported post

    There is a bias in the press. Say it isn't so.:P That is why I watch Fox news.

    Ask anyone just back from Iraq if the media is biased and they will probably just frown.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    CBS did just get rid of Dan Rather.

    I think he was a serious embarrassment and getting worse as he got older.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    Fox is better than others, but they still have some people I am suspicious of. I'll include a name as well: Geraldo Rivera.

    ProguninTN

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    ProguninTN wrote:
    Fox is better than others, but they still have some people I am suspicious of. I'll include a name as well: Geraldo Rivera.

    ProguninTN
    The one thing I do like about Fox News is that they generally separate news and commentary and most of the time the news is pretty neutral, at least compared to other sources.

    I expect commentary to be biased toward the speaker's POV. It is supposed to be.

    I also want news that is news and not commentary biased toward a POV.

    At one time I was an avid watcher of 60 minutes. They had high standards and you could depend on a fair assessment and reporting of the facts when they did a story. The last 10 years though, they have gotten to the point where I just stopped watching it. I think the low point might have been when they allowed Bill and Hillary to engage in blatant dishonesty, and no effort whatsoever was made to point out those dishonesties.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mechanicsville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    548

    Post imported post

    The way I see it, is Fox allows other points of veiw while the "Big 3" keep the liberal bias alive at all costs. Even at the cost of their own standards. I use the word standards loosly when talking about ABC, CBS, or NBC.



  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    cs9c1 wrote:
    The way I see it, is Fox allows other points of veiw while the "Big 3" keep the liberal bias alive at all costs. Even at the cost of their own standards. I use the word standards loosly when talking about ABC, CBS, or NBC.

    Fox is not particularly conservative. I am astounded to see all the rantings to the contrary. Those that claimthat obviously don't watch much Fox. What they did was make a business decision to allow a more balanced approach on the commentary side, and to make an effort to separate news and commentary.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    bWhile Fox is more balanced, those who claim it is conservative either fail to recognize its liberal tint, or they are so liberal, anyone who is more centrist is labeled "conservative" in their opinion.

    ProguninTN

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    ProguninTN wrote:
    bWhile Fox is more balanced, those who claim it is conservative either fail to recognize its liberal tint, or they are so liberal, anyone who is more centrist is labeled "conservative" in their opinion.

    ProguninTN
    they are a lot better at separating commentary and news.

    i don't care if a commentator expresses a POV. that is what they do. and you are right that much of the fox news commentators, like oreilly, are anything but conservative. i get a kick out of the whiners who put oreilly up as proof of how far to the right fox is. it is obvious they do not watch the show or they would never say such a thing.

    it is like people who do not listen to rush Limbaugh claiming he says all kinds of things that are just totally out of character with his show. i know he just never said it, or perhaps said in a way that he clearly meant it as humor or satire.



  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Personally I don't trust any media outlets including fox. Last week they had a story on psychics (only they called themselves 'sensitives)andFox dead serious about it. It really made me question their intelligence or wonder what they think of the viewers intelligence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •