> The Journalist’s Guide to Gun Violence Coverage – Thursday, December
>18, 2003 at 10:54
> The Journalist’s Guide to Gun Violence Coverage
>
> Guns are a sad fact of life in American culture and are a major
>topic in modern journalism. A good Journalist has a duty to get involved
>and make a difference in this important societal debate. By following
>certain guidelines, the concerned Journalist can be assured of having the
>maximum impact on this shameful problem.
>
> The first principle to remember is that subtle use of terminology
>can covertly influence the reader. Adjectives should be chosen for maximum
>anti-gun effect. When describing a gun, attach terms like “automatic,”
>”semi-automatic,” “large caliber,” “deadly,” “high powered,” or “powerful”.
>Almost any gun can be described by one or more of these terms. More than
>two guns should be called an “arsenal”.
>
> Try to include the term “assault weapon” if at all possible. This
>can be combined with any of the terms above for best results. Nobody
>actually knows what an assault weapon is, so you cannot be criticized for
>this usage. Your local anti-gun organization can provide you with a list of
>the latest buzz words like “junk guns,” “Saturday Night Specials,” and “the
>criminal’s weapon of choice”.
>
> Don’t worry about getting technical details right. Many a reporter
>has accidentally written about semi-automatic revolvers or committed other
>minor errors. Since most people know little about guns, this is not a
>problem. Only the gun nuts will complain and they don’t count. The
>emotional content of your article is much more important than the factual
>details, since people are more easily influenced through their emotions
>than through logic.
>
> Broadcast Journalists should have a file tape showing a machine gun
>firing on full automatic. Run this video while describing “automatic”
>weapons used in a crime or confiscated by police. At the least, a large
>graphic of a handgun should be displayed behind the on-air personality when
>reading any crime story.
>
> Do not waste words describing criminals who use guns to commit
>crimes. Instead of calling them burglar, rapist, murderer, or repeat
>offender, simply use the term “gunman”. This helps the public associate all
>forms of crime and violence with the possession of guns.
>
> Whenever drug dealers are arrested, guns are usually confiscated by
>the police. Mention the type and number of guns more prominently than the
>type and quantity of drugs. Include the number of rounds of ammunition
>seized, since the number will seem large to those who know little about
>guns. Obviously, the drug dealers who had the guns should now be called
>”gunmen”.
>
> Political discussions on gun control legislation usually involve
>pro-gun organizations. Always refer to these organizations as “the gun
>lobby”. If space permits, mention how much money the gun lobby has spent to
>influence political campaigns and describe their legislative lobbying
>efforts as “arm twisting” or “threats”.
>
> Gun owners must never be seen in a positive light. Do not mention
>that these misguided individuals may actually be well educated, or have
>respectable jobs and healthy families. They should be called “gun nuts” if
>possible or simply gun owners at best. Mention details about their
>clothing, especially if they are wearing hunting clothes or hats. Mention
>the simplistic slogans on their bumper stickers to show that their
>intelligence level is low. Many gun owners drive pickup trucks, hunt and
>live in rural areas. Use these details to help portray them as ignorant
>rednecks. Don’t use the word “hunt”. Always say that they “kill” animals.
>
> Don’t be afraid to interview these people, they are harmless even
>though we don’t portray them that way. Try to solicit comments that can be
>taken out of context to show them in the worst possible light.
>
> Never question the effectiveness of gun control laws or proposals.
>Guns are evil and kill people. Removing guns from society can only be good.
>Nobody really uses guns for legitimate self-defense, especially women or
>children. Any stories about armed self-defense must be minimized or
>suppressed.
>
> Be careful about criticizing the police for responding slowly to 911
>calls for help. It is best if the public feels like the police can be
>relied upon to protect them at all times. If people are buying guns to
>protect their families, you are not doing your job.
>
> Emphasize stories where people kill family members and/or themselves
>with guns. It is important to make the public feel like they could lose
>control and start killing at any moment if they have a gun in the house.
>Any story where a child misuses a gun is front page material.
>
> View every shooting as an event to be exploited. Always include
>emotional quotes from the victim’s family if possible. If they are not
>available, the perpetrator’s family will do nicely. The quote must blame
>the tragedy on the availability of guns. Photos or video of grieving family
>members are worth a thousand facts. Most people will accept the assertion
>that guns cause crime. It is much easier than believing that some people
>deliberately choose to harm others.
>
> Your story should include terms like “tragic” or “preventable” and
>mention the current toll of gun violence in your city or state. Good
>reporters always know exactly how many gun deaths have occurred in their
>area since the first of the year. List two or three previous incidents of
>gun violence to give the impression of a continuing crime wave.
>
> Little space should be devoted to shootings where criminals kill
>each other. Although these deaths greatly inflate the annual gun violence
>numbers, they distract from the basic mission of urging law abiding
>citizens to give up their guns. Do not dig too deeply into the reasons
>behind shootings. The fact that a gun was involved is the major point,
>unless someone under 18 is affected, in which case the child angle is now
>of equal importance.
>
> Any article about gun violence should include quotes from anti-gun
>organizations or politicians. One quote should say that we must do
>something “for the children”. Anti-gun spokespersons should be called
>”activists” or “advocates”. If your employer wishes to appear unbiased, you
>can include one token quote from a gun lobby group to show that you are
>being fair. The anti-gun statements should be accepted as fact. The gun
>lobby statement can be denigrated by including text like, “according to gun
>lobbyist Jones.”
>
> Fortunately, statements from anti-gun organizations come in short
>sound bites that are perfect for generating an emotional response in the
>reader or viewer. Gun lobby statements usually contain boring facts that
>are easy to ignore.
>
> Feel secure in your advocacy journalism. The vast majority of your
>fellow Journalists support your activism. The nation will be a better place
>when only the police and military have guns. Remember that you are doing it
>for the children so the end justifies the means.
>
> Eventually, the government will have a monopoly on power. Don’t
>worry about the right to freedom of the press, just contact me then for
>more helpful hints.
>
> Professor Michael Brown
> School of Journalism, Brady Chair
> Vancouver College of Liberal Arts
>
>
> Political Satire, copyright 1999, Michael Brown. May be reproduced
>freely in its full and complete form. The author may be contacted at
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> Comments
> Comments by Jarrol from United States on Thursday, December 18, 2003
>at 14:14
> Sad but true, the anti-gun journalists always seem to use this style
>of reporting. Sick to my stomach reading this but we must educate
>ourselves.
>
> Comments by Ticked Ontarian from Canada on Thursday, December 18,
>2003 at 14:02
> Professor Brown, good point. Sadly, 99% of journalists are just as
>destructive as the LIE-beral government and just as deceptive. They
>couldn’t speak truth if they bothered to find it.
>
> Comments by Greg from Canada on Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 13:21
> Sad but true. As firearms owners we’re not only portrayed as
>criminals but second class citizens as well.
>
> Comments by Iain from Canada on Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 12:26
> Excellent satire but uncomfortly close to the truth. I’m sure that
>if this landed on the desk of some CBC hack, the comment would be “don’t
>tell me how to do my job; I already know”
>
> Comments by Peter Plug from Canada on Thursday, December 18, 2003 at
>11:08
> Well done !!! UNFORTUNATELY, it is unlikely that the “average”
>journalist would take the time to read the whole piece, even less likely
>that they would recognise the satirical intent. But please keep it up, for
>us, average Canadians. (oh, sorry I forgot that as a firearms user I’m not
>an average Canadian anymore, but a “criminal” )
>