Missed this reader reaction to the original San Antonio newspaper story.
Reacting to the original San Antonio newspaper story, an SSI reader wrote the reporter:
"SAN ANTONIO Gun enthusiasts gathered at the Alamo Saturday to rally for the right to openly carry firearms, without state and local restrictions that are now in place. "
Dear Mr. Buch,
Next time someone mentions media bias to you and you shake your head disparagingly, perhaps you will recall this note.
Your choice of the first two words in your article is perhaps one of the best examples of media bias that I can recall. Your first two words manage to both pigeon hole and denigrate the men and women who participated in the protest today. Many of the folks who protested today might, in fact, be gun enthusiasts, but that is certainly not the most important characteristic they have in common, nor was simple gun enthusiasm the reason for their participation.
As you are doubtless aware, but wish to ignore in your article, the protest was in support of a natural right protected from government restriction by the constitution. The reasons, that you were careful to overlook, for the protest being in San Antonio were twofold. The obvious symbolic nature of the Alamo location was one reason. The second and perhaps more important reason was that the City of San Antonio has made rules and instructed their officers to enforce them contrary to the text and intent of Texas law and certainly contrary to the spirit of the natural rights that these protesters claim.
In fact, several of your updates, particularly the 3:05 p.m. one, illustrate explicitly the San Antonio rules that were under protest.
Many of us consider these protesters patriots and defenders of our sadly neglected and ignored constitution and its protections of our rights. To dub them merely "gun enthusiasts" is both insulting and a deliberate distortion of the meaning and purpose of their protest.
4 comments:
That was my note, Mike. I copied you on my email to the reporter, a Jason Buch. Unexpectedly, he replied to me, but his reply was the usual and sad incomprehension of the ideas in the note. He was more offended that I accused him of bias than anything else. Note to self ... there was probably a more diplomatic way to make my point, but I am frankly past caring to convince such people. Cheers.
Showing a reporter evidence of any bias on their part is akin to introducing a vampire to a sunny day.
Nobody ever won an engagement by underestimating their opponent. When you constantly denigrate your opponent you set yourself up for a fall.
Sidebar: Many years a knew a preacher mispronounced (entirely by accident since he was not normally given to word play) "denigrate" in an odd but oddly very apropo manner. He always pronounced it "de-nigger-ate".
Being constitutionally incapable of conceiving that others could possibly be willing to do anything which they, themselves, would/could do, they blithly plan to ride out a 21st Century 6-day war in their secure, safe green zones. I guess they've never heard of any of the mayhem wreaked upon green zone residents in Baghdad and Kandahar.
Their monstrous egotism will pay enormous and terrible dividends as the iron law of unintended consequences rears up and smashes them upside the head with a 4X4.
I'm glad we dodged the bullet Saturday. We could experienced the 21st Century version of both the "Boston Massacre" and "the shot heard 'round the world". I could see our Mike being one of the casualties. Perfect way to eliminate a thorn in your side.
UK Houston was exactly on target, and not undiplomatic. Buch was dishonest; he made no attempt to explain the issue, but framed it in a way that favors opponents of liberty.
It's typical of disarmament op-eds to try and frame the issue as some peoples' mere taste for guns (or fixation on them). But this entirely misses the point.
The issue is not guns. The issue is individual liberty.
Excellent note by UKH.
Post a Comment