Monthly Archives: April 2009

20/20 On How To Present Propoganda And Lies As Investigative Journalism

Over on the blog Found, One Troll, you’ll find an excellent dissection of a 20/20 anti-gun episode called “If I Only Had A Gun.” The reason given for the show is:

Thirteen people were killed last week in Binghamton, N.Y., when a gunman, identified by authorities as 41-year-old Jiverly Wong, executed a mass shooting at the American Civic Association. The aftermath of that bloodshed has raised many questions, including whether armed, everyday citizens could take down such a gunman and save lives. Could you protect yourself if you only had a gun?

20/20 then proceeds to blow a whole hour on trying to prove that not only could you not protect yourself if you had a gun, but (apparently) that even the police get barely any benefit from being armed — whether or not they are facing an armed aggressor.

But, for whatever reason, they failed to discover any of the studies showing that Americans actually do use firearms defensively, and successfully, to save themselves from violent criminals between 400,000 and 1,300,000 times every year, and although 20/20’s investigations discovered several high profile public shootings, they utterly failed to find out about any of the many times where an armed civilian on the scene really did stop the mass-murderer, and protected him/herself and the other people there. Heck, off the top of my head I can think of several:

  • The shooter in SLC was stopped by an off-duty police officer who ignored the “no guns” signs
  • There was that armed security lady who stopped a shooter at a church in Colorado
  • Back when there was a big rash of school shootings in the late ’90s, 3 or 4 of them were stopped by people who ran 1000 yards to where a gun was kept (legally outside the no-gun zone) and then ran back to stop the shooter

If I spent some time on searching the news, I could easily find links to newspaper reports of those incidents.

So why was ABC’s crack team of “investigative” journalists unable to find out that having a gun really does, in fact, give you a pretty darn good chance of being able to fight for your life rather than just getting helplessly slaughtered?

Answer: you’re asking the wrong question. The real question is: “Why did they deliberately suppress proof that being armed is better than being disarmed by the government and being forced to rely on its agents for your protection and safety?”

And the answer to that is: Because Diane Sawyer and ABC are part of the media arm of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Almost every top government official in the current administration is also a member of the CFR. The CFR is a “policy group” dedicated to replacing sovereign governments with an all-powerful world government, ruling over every human being on the planet. If you’ve ever seen any studies showing that the media is overwhelmingly leftist, or more liberal than the populace at large, it is because most of the top members of the media — television and newspaper — are members of the CFR and enthusiastically promote its agenda.

You being able to be self-reliant for your own well being is contrary to their agenda.

CFR membership also explains how certain talking-points are used universally amongst the crowd. For instance, as the blogger noted about the show:

* 0:01 – Jonathan Lowy (Identified with name on screen) of the Brady Bunch uses the same peanut butter quote in the show as Paul Helmke used on his blog, as below:

“About 30,000 people a year in this country die from gun violence, about 80 a day, 32 by homicide – the same number who died at Virginia Tech two years ago this month.In the space of four months, up to nine Americans died as a result of bacteria-laden peanut butter crackers, and the government quickly took action.” – Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign.

Following a link in the article led to another article, with this quote:

“We have 32 people being murdered by guns every day in this country,” said Michael Wolkowitz, a board member of the Brady Center, which lobbies for tighter gun restrictions. “If peanut butter or pistachio nuts or spinach killed that number of people once in one day, they’d be pulled by the [Food and Drug Administration].”

Paul Helmke went to Yale with the Clintons. All three of them are CFR members. Nevermind that they are wrong about the basic statistics in those quotes (which statistics they consistently cite), they are being intentionally disingenuous by implying that because the government fails to protect you from poisonous food they will attempt to make up for it by yanking that food supply, that because criminals are murduring lots of people the government should save us by taking away guns.

First, they misconstrue the stats by misleading you to believe that all of those 30,000 deaths are guns just wantonly killing people, ignoring the people pulling the trigger. They have to do this because they’d otherwise have to admit that a signifigant number of those deaths are the victims and police shooting criminals in self-defense, that another signifigant number of those are people shooting themselves intentionally, and that another signifigant number of those deaths are criminals shooting other criminals.

And in addition, they don’t want you to find out that criminals use firearms less frequently than other tools, such as knives, hands and feet, etc, when committing murder.

So they are deliberatly misleading viewers, making you think it is guns going out and killing people, rather than criminals. They should be comparing the tainted lettuce to criminals, and complain that the FDA pulls tainted produce from the shelves while violent criminals roam around free.

They apparently don’t care what criminals do to you, as long as the criminals don’t use guns (even though criminals will keep using guns, regardless). And they really don’t want you to even try shooting back, because for whatever reason, the thought of a shootout makes them wet their pants, but the thought defenseless victims being slaughtered without even the chance of fighting back makes them feel warm all over.

Because that’s the sort of populace you need if you’re going to take over the world.