[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: BBC Extraordinarily Biased on Gun Issues
Dear Mr. Wollman:
My contribution to the discussion on this topic focused on the gun
issue (since that was the earlier BRI post that caught my eye and
prompted me to respond) and how it's being reported by BBC within its
hourly newscasts. I've personally heard some erroneous reports and
opinion pieces on BBC recently, so I felt compelled to chime in
(excuse me, Big Ben) on the issue.
Some of us, both outside and within the broadcast business, view with
some alarm the sometimes not-so-subtle bias by reporters and news
organizations on a number of different issues (not just guns) that has
resulted in distorted reporting of events surrounding recent news
The issue, as I saw and addressed it, is not guns themselves, but the
integrity of the reporting process. The propensity by news
organizations to dramatize stories beyond the facts has unfortunately
become all too commonplace. It's most notable at the national level,
but it's also becoming more apparent at local stations, even here in
Maine. Perhaps it's rating points that drive reporters to stretch the
credibility envelope, or maybe it's just the personal ego of some
reporters to "make a difference".
I suspect that a ton of people in the news business could use an
occasional refresher course on ethics, integrity, dispassionate
observation, and accurate writing. A news organization that has any
self-respect would insist upon it.
That being said, Mr. Wollman, I will respectfully defer to your
request, as I understand it, not to post any additional posts
concerning "guns". It's apparent that you're quite sensitive to the
issue, as am I. I trust, however, that I will be able to continue
contributing to the list on other broadcast-related topics.
In ending this post, however, I must briefly respond to your public
post in which you provided not only notice to me to cease addressing
the issue, but took a "parting shot" as well on the gun issue itself.
Suffice it to say that I substantially differ with you on your
characterization of the NRA. Furthermore, your observation that the
US Supreme Court has "from time to time" interpreted the Second
Amendment substantially differently than is understood by the NRA and
millions of gunowners is clearly erroneous, as any reputable
Constitutional scholar will attest.
PS: Sorry, folks, if this is "too serious" a way to wrap up 2000,
which, afterall, has been a "zinger" of a year. Just had to get it
off my chest. It's done. (I'm actually a fairly "fun" guy!) I
sincerely wish everyone a very HAPPY NEW YEAR!