PDA

View Full Version : Want to know why ABC 7 is so consistently anti-gun?


B Strong
10-15-2009, 11:42 AM
Dan Noyes (Secretary, Co-founder), Center for Investigative Reporting

http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/investigations/topic

Consistently anti-gun.

SteveMartin
10-15-2009, 11:49 AM
He certainly has an ambiguous last name! :D

sholling
10-15-2009, 12:02 PM
That's just how reporters roll. Very few are what I'd call bright people. Most are just liberals that went into journalism because they weren't smart enough to take the hard math classes that might let them invent the next green energy big thing, and journalism seemed like an easy way to save the world from something. Anything really. It doesn't matter what but they have to save it from something. Their sense of self worth depends on it.

That's why they pile on the global warming bandwagon. They aren't smart enough to question the orthodoxy and if they did they wouldn't understand the answers. Instead they latch on to simplistic things... ban guns to end violence... ban CO2 to save the planet... turn to government to feed the "poor". That's about the limit of the intellectual power of most in that business. There are exceptions of course but they're rare.

Flopper
10-15-2009, 1:04 PM
That's just how reporters roll. Very few are what I'd call bright people. Most are just liberals that went into journalism because they weren't smart enough to take the hard math classes that might let them invent the next green energy big thing, and journalism seemed like an easy way to save the world from something. Anything really. It doesn't matter what but they have to save it from something. Their sense of self worth depends on it.

That's why they pile on the global warming bandwagon. They aren't smart enough to question the orthodoxy and if they did they wouldn't understand the answers. Instead they latch on to simplistic things... ban guns to end violence... ban CO2 to save the planet... turn to government to feed the "poor". That's about the limit of the intellectual power of most in that business. There are exceptions of course but they're rare.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

MolonLabe2008
10-15-2009, 2:06 PM
Want to know why ABC 7 is so consistently anti-gun?

All of the alphabet news agencies (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc...) are anti-gun and Socialist for that matter.

What? You haven't figured that out yet?

B Strong
10-15-2009, 4:15 PM
All of the alphabet news agencies (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc...) are anti-gun and Socialist for that matter.

What? You haven't figured that out yet?

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty familar with exactly how ABC goes about their reporting on firearms issues going back to the 1970's. Believe it or not, ABC had a local reporter that was pro-gun, a hunter and shooter. I met him through shooting and had many converstaions with him about how corporate operated. He had a great deal of insight about how the gun related stories were crafted and reported on.

Here's a link for the lazy from the CIR about gun control reporting methodology, straight out of the ABC playbook:

http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/files/GunReportingMethodology.pdf

oldrifle
10-15-2009, 4:22 PM
He certainly has an ambiguous last name! :D

Wow, I almost busted a gut when I read that. hahahaha :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Wildhawk66
10-15-2009, 4:38 PM
Dan Noyes

He certainly has an ambiguous last name!

Very well played.

shooten
10-15-2009, 5:22 PM
That's just how reporters roll. Very few are what I'd call bright people. Most are just liberals that went into journalism because they weren't smart enough to take the hard math classes that might let them invent the next green energy big thing, and journalism seemed like an easy way to save the world from something. Anything really. It doesn't matter what but they have to save it from something. Their sense of self worth depends on it.

That's why they pile on the global warming bandwagon. They aren't smart enough to question the orthodoxy and if they did they wouldn't understand the answers. Instead they latch on to simplistic things... ban guns to end violence... ban CO2 to save the planet... turn to government to feed the "poor". That's about the limit of the intellectual power of most in that business. There are exceptions of course but they're rare.

Very well said. In addition, they think that their audience can only understand the soundbite because they assume the "public" at large is dumb.

M198
10-15-2009, 5:29 PM
I agree. Case in point, Sara Palin. She has a degree in communications with an emphasis on Journalism.

crowbar
10-15-2009, 5:39 PM
In the 60's, KABC used to televise great outdoors oriented shows. It was not unusual to watch segments devoted to shooting and hunting. Nowadays, why even watch television ?

mmbasser
10-15-2009, 5:55 PM
I just read the first few pages of that report.:confused:

HMMMM, I thought assualt rifles(whatever that is!) were the weapon of choice for the criminals:44: :rolleyes:

NovaTodd
10-15-2009, 6:46 PM
HMMMM, I thought assualt rifles(whatever that is!) were the weapon of choice for the criminals:44: :rolleyes:

That's a bolt action assault rifle... :TFH:

advocatusdiaboli
10-15-2009, 6:52 PM
Most are just liberals that went into journalism

Calling them liberal (or conservative for that matter) gives them too much credit--most have no ethics or moral convictions right or left--they are selfish egoists who follow the money to try and grab all they can while primping for the limelight. That includes the whole crew at Fox as well as at NPR.

She has a degree in communications with an emphasis on Journalism.

And she still struggles to put together entire sentences. What a credit to our educational system.

advocatusdiaboli
10-15-2009, 6:56 PM
In the 60's, KABC used to televise great outdoors oriented shows. It was not unusual to watch segments devoted to shooting and hunting. Nowadays, why even watch television?

That has nothing to do with liberalism--television news channels have no ethics or morals--they are all about the Benjamins. It has to do with a large decline in the percentage of the population that hunts and fishes.

Remember--news channels make their money from advertising--the bigger their audience, the more they can charge for advertising to it. With an ever smaller portion of our increasingly "citified" population interested in hunting, fishing, and shooting sports, they simply stopped covering them or caring about them and focused on things that bring the bigger audiences and the advertising money. And that is why they are leaning more anti-firearm--because fewer and fewer people care about them much any more. Americans have had freedom for so many generations that they take it as a given and didn't flinch when the Patriot Act took some of it away. Jefferson and the two Adams would be livid if Habeas Corpus had been taken away. Now it has been and no one even frowned.

And good example is a little known fact: only something like 10% of Patriot Act searches (that would have been illegal prior to it) are for terrorism--the rest are for the suspicion of other crimes--Camel's Nose in the tent folks. But most people don't know and don't care.

Bottom line: it is not a conspiracy--it's capitalism plan and simple.

mmbasser
10-15-2009, 7:43 PM
And good example is a little known fact: only something like 10% of Patriot Act searches (that would have been illegal prior to it) are for terrorism--the rest are for the suspicion of other crimes--Camel's Nose in the tent folks. But most people don't know and don't care.


Can you site a source for this assertion?

Just curious!

advocatusdiaboli
10-15-2009, 8:19 PM
Can you site a source for this assertion?

I was kind at the 10% figure now that I go back and actually tally the data...

From an article at a liberal news site but it passes the smell test for me despite the source as it is actual Congressional testimony:

"Only three of the 763 "sneak-and-peek" requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases, according to a July 2009 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Sixty-five percent were drug cases. [ I wonder what the rest were for? --AD]

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) quizzed Assistant Attorney General David Kris about the discrepancy at a hearing on the PATRIOT Act Wednesday. One might expect Kris to argue that there is a connection between drug trafficking and terrorism or that the administration is otherwise justified to use the authority by virtue of some other connection to terrorism.

He didn't even try. "This authority here on the sneak-and-peek side, on the criminal side, is not meant for intelligence. It's for criminal cases. So I guess it's not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases," Kris said.

"As I recall it was in something called the USA PATRIOT Act," Feingold quipped, "which was passed in a rush after an attack on 9/11 that had to do with terrorism it didn't have to do with regular, run-of-the-mill criminal cases. Let me tell you why I'm concerned about these numbers: That's not how this was sold to the American people. It was sold as stated on DoJ's website in 2005 as being necessary - quote - to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.

Kris responded by saying that some courts had already granted the Justice Department authority to conduct sneak-and-peeks. But Feingold countered that the PATRIOT Act codified and expanded that authority -- all under the guise of the war on terror.
Feingold, the lone vote against the PATRIOT Act when it was first passed, is introducing an amendment to curb its reach. "I'm going to say it's quite extraordinary to grant government agents the statutory authority to secretly break into Americans homes," he said.

Note he was the lone vote against it and a DEMOCRAT. Beware of labels my brethren--they are tools some will use to confuse and manipulate you to further their own ends. Bush and Cheney are not our friends. Judge each man on his actions.

Didn't Jefferson have some quote about people in fear for their safety giving up freedom and, in the end, deserving neither.
Rings true to me here. And GW Bush and Richard Cheney, our national leaders at the time, endorsed doing this to us with our consent. Shameful.

I don't endorse the HuffPost in any way--they irritate me daily with their biased coverage (much as Fox does on the other end of the spectrum), but every once in a while they uncover a gem like this that makes monitoring them well worth the while. Fox NEVER finds Bill of Rights/Constitutional freedom stuff like this--because they are angry loud-mouthed tools of the corporate right. Liberals have their uses after all--they actually worry about freedom and the Bill of Rights...sometimes anyway.

Watch the video of this testimony and if it doesn't send chills up your 2A spine, then you are not alive.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/watch-doj-official-blows_n_296209.html
[URL="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SneakAndPeakReport.pdf"SneakAndPeakReport.pdf[/URL]

I just realized this is my 100th post and a good one for that milestone.
Thanks for listening.

dan noyes
10-15-2009, 11:44 PM
Would you stop to think for a second that you have two different Dan Noyes'?

Don't feel too badly -- the mistake's been made before. Check out google images.

Cheers,
Dan Noyes
ABC 7 News
San Francisco

P.S. Always looking for a story, no matter what side of an issue you're on:

dan.noyes@abc.com

Scratch705
10-16-2009, 1:04 AM
^^^ bwhahaha, was waiting for someone to do the work to troll with that name...

Hunt
10-16-2009, 4:16 AM
That's just how reporters roll. Very few are what I'd call bright people. Most are just liberals that went into journalism because they weren't smart enough to take the hard math classes that might let them invent the next green energy big thing, and journalism seemed like an easy way to save the world from something. Anything really. It doesn't matter what but they have to save it from something. Their sense of self worth depends on it.

That's why they pile on the global warming bandwagon. They aren't smart enough to question the orthodoxy and if they did they wouldn't understand the answers. Instead they latch on to simplistic things... ban guns to end violence... ban CO2 to save the planet... turn to government to feed the "poor". That's about the limit of the intellectual power of most in that business. There are exceptions of course but they're rare.

+100

B Strong
10-16-2009, 5:35 AM
Would you stop to think for a second that you have two different Dan Noyes'?

Don't feel too badly -- the mistake's been made before. Check out google images.

Cheers,
Dan Noyes
ABC 7 News
San Francisco

P.S. Always looking for a story, no matter what side of an issue you're on:

dan.noyes@abc.com

I stand corrected, and I apologize for any inconvenience.

Vinnie
10-16-2009, 5:55 AM
Would you stop to think for a second that you have two different Dan Noyes'?

Don't feel too badly -- the mistake's been made before. Check out google images.

Cheers,
Dan Noyes
ABC 7 News
San Francisco

P.S. Always looking for a story, no matter what side of an issue you're on:

dan.noyes@abc.com

Mr. Noyes,
Welcome to Calguns.net
Could you please tell us your thoughts on California gun control laws?
Thanks...

sholling
10-16-2009, 7:42 AM
Calling them liberal (or conservative for that matter) gives them too much credit--most have no ethics or moral convictions right or left--they are selfish egoists who follow the money to try and grab all they can while primping for the limelight. That includes the whole crew at Fox as well as at NPR.
This is incorrect. Getting angry and spewing accomplishes nothing. You need to sit down and read Bernie Goldberg's book Bias (http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0895261901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255710578&sr=8-1). The majority of the media are true believers in liberal causes and really aren't capable of thinking past soundbites.

And she still struggles to put together entire sentences. What a credit to our educational system.
It's important to some in here to trash any solidly pro 2 Amendment politicians as stupid. How do we "know" that she's stupid - well the liberal media told us she's stupid. The same media that tells us that Joe Biden is a brilliant foreign policy expert has complained that every conservative candidate for President for the last 50 years was stupid. Stupid because they just know that all smart people are liberals. It's just a rule of thumb. Once you as a reporter understand that all conservatives are stupid and all gun owners are just inbred hayseeds it's just a matter of selling the concept to the public. And then some of us fall for it. We were told over and over in the media that Reagan was stupid, senile, and a war monger. The media said it so it must be true? The same media that told you Palin is stupid. The same media that hyped Biden's foreign policy brilliance and gushes over Obama as The Messiah. If you ran as a Republican they would label you as stupid. So let's keep helping get more gun grabbing laws passed by labeling all of our friends too stupid to run for office. Anybody that supports us must be too stupid for us to support. The media told us so...

sholling
10-16-2009, 8:22 AM
That has nothing to do with liberalism--television news channels have no ethics or morals--they are all about the Benjamins. It has to do with a large decline in the percentage of the population that hunts and fishes.

Remember--news channels make their money from advertising--the bigger their audience, the more they can charge for advertising to it. With an ever smaller portion of our increasingly "citified" population interested in hunting, fishing, and shooting sports, they simply stopped covering them or caring about them and focused on things that bring the bigger audiences and the advertising money. And that is why they are leaning more anti-firearm--because fewer and fewer people care about them much any more. Americans have had freedom for so many generations that they take it as a given and didn't flinch when the Patriot Act took some of it away. Jefferson and the two Adams would be livid if Habeas Corpus had been taken away. Now it has been and no one even frowned.

And good example is a little known fact: only something like 10% of Patriot Act searches (that would have been illegal prior to it) are for terrorism--the rest are for the suspicion of other crimes--Camel's Nose in the tent folks. But most people don't know and don't care.

Bottom line: it is not a conspiracy--it's capitalism plan and simple.
Completely and demonstrably false. It's all about liberal idealism and that's provable. Advertisers pay based on a formula that uses total viewership and the number of viewers in the prime (big spending) demographic. Let's look at the ratings of the various Cable news organizations has reported by the ultra liberal HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html).

"Fox News has pulled off another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in 3Q 2009 and growing against 3Q 2008, while CNN and MSNBC lost substantial portions of their election-boom audience.

Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined."
If it were all about the money then CNN and MSNBC would be moving to the right. Instead CNN remains left of center and MSNBC remains the cheerleading section for all things Obama even though the value of their advertising slots is plummeting. If the bottom line mattered they would be moving right to poach Fox's audience - instead they keep moving left.

BTW according to Bernie Goldberg (author of Bias) CBS, NBC, and ABC news don't even realize how biased that they are. All of the friends of the news departments' movers and shakers are members of the New York City cocktail set and almost all of their story ideas come from the NY Times. Because they hang out with nothing but NYC liberals they see people like the late Teddy Kennedy as centrists not leftists.

You have the same story on a smaller scale in local news. Local news reporters were steeped in liberal thinking in college and hang out with fellow liberals once they get into the business. Local news does care about ratings but since they are soundbite and sensation driven as well as ignorant liberals they are more hype driven than the national network. The message is just as important to them. Liberals and Democrats = good, Republicans and guns = evil. Look at the LA Times. That rag has been losing readers in mass for decades because of their editorial policy. They don't care. Their political agenda is more important than selling papers.

But it goes further. Look at what movies are made vs what movies make money. Hollywood lost money or barely broke even on every one of the anti-Iraq War/anti-solder movies that they made during the Bush Administration - they didn't care. They wanted to trash US solders and so be it if the investors lost money.

dan noyes
10-16-2009, 11:56 AM
I stand corrected, and I apologize for any inconvenience.

It's not a big deal to me -- I'm all about accuracy.

Best,
Dan

dan noyes
10-16-2009, 12:01 PM
Mr. Noyes,
Welcome to Calguns.net
Could you please tell us your thoughts on California gun control laws?
Thanks...

Vinnie,

One of my fondest memories of my childhood was going duck hunting on the Eastern Shore of Maryland with my father and brother. Unfortunately, I also recall one time when I was 9, I tripped on a vine in the pre-dawn darkness, fell face down in the marsh, cried and scared away the birds. Funny now, not so much then.

As for California gun laws, I have to admit I'm not current on the various issues. Guns are not part of my daily life. But, as I said, I am always looking for an investigative story -- abuse of power, corruption, standing up for the little guy.

Hope that helps,
Dan

Vinnie
10-16-2009, 12:26 PM
Vinnie,

...As for California gun laws, I have to admit I'm not current on the various issues. Guns are not part of my daily life. But, as I said, I am always looking for an investigative story -- abuse of power, corruption, standing up for the little guy.

Hope that helps,
Dan


OK Dan,… here’s an investigative story for you to cover… It’s about abuse of power, corruption, and standing up for the little guy:

The US Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”… yet, California lawmakers have erected numerous obstacles and barriers (infringements) to this most basic right. [Imagine what would happen if a group, a company, a city, or a State were to willfully erect these types of barriers limiting access to other guaranteed rights!..... would that be a story worth covering?]

Dan, you have definitely come to the right place for taking an active interest in this issue… Please take some time to check out this area of the website:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71

… do a little research of your own… and then decide if this qualifies as an investigative story about abuse of power, corruption, and standing up for the little guy.

Vinnie

dantodd
10-16-2009, 1:32 PM
One of my fondest memories of my childhood was going duck hunting on the Eastern Shore of Maryland with my father and brother. Unfortunately, I also recall one time when I was 9, I tripped on a vine in the pre-dawn darkness, fell face down in the marsh, cried and scared away the birds. Funny now, not so much then.

Thanks for taking the time to check in and straighten a few things out.

Gun rights in general are really exciting right now. They are the new frontier of civil rights. I know that there is a low signal to noise ratio on most forums and we are not completely an exception. However; if you take a cursory look around you will find that most here are quite libertarian in bent and not at all the "right wing extremists" that are often portrayed as leading the gun culture. We do have our share of the stereotypical gun owners but also transgendered gun owners, Gay gun owners, liberal gun owners and just about every stripe imaginable. We are quite a fun crowd.


Here is one possible story about Gun Rights and Civil Rights and where they intersect.

The Second Amendment actually doesn't exist in California today. I mean that literally, not figuratively. The Bill of Rights were not written to be applied against the States, only the Federal government and California never included a Second Amendment analog in their constitution.

After the civil war the 14th Amendment was written to protect us from state abuses because of the treatment of freed slaves in the south. This is called incorporating the rights against the states. This was the true nexus of the civil rights movement in America. The 14th Amendment was intended to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights. The problem is that the Supreme Court struck down much of what the 14th Amendment stood for and each right within the Bill of Rights had to be independently incorporated. The Second Amendment is the last of the relevant amendments in the Bill of Rights to be argued for incorporation. The exciting thing for all Civil Rights activists is that the case before the Supreme Court regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment actually requests the Supreme Court to re-interpret the 14th Amendment much more broadly than it is currently and return it to its full strength which would help all civil rights activists.

If you are interested in doing a story about the Gun movement and how we feel it is the next civil rights frontier you should contact Gene Hoffman (hoffmang on the boards) he is the president of the California Guns Foundation ( http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ ) and they are leading many lawsuits to reclaim the Second Amendment for California.


As for investigative stories here is one that is particularly interesting.

California has a very restrictive right to carry. Essentially the local police and sheriff have full discretion on who is given a permit. As you can probably imagine this is a commonly abused power. There are a number of lawyers and investigators who have done a ton of leg work in determining correlations between campaign contributions and the issuance of a licenses to carry a hangun. I doubt you would be surprised by the results but the scale is a bit shocking.

FastFinger
10-16-2009, 2:35 PM
I spent 25 years in TV newsrooms in an "above the line' position, so none of this is too surprising. During that time (I got out about 10 years ago) the content went from adequate to trash. As it is now I can go for months without watching local SoCal news (and do), and I doubt I'm missing anything.

We have pressing, dire, social emergencies every day and they'll lead with a fender bender on the 101 just because, well frankly I don't know how they justify that decision. But somehow they do because that seems to be the lead for 9 out of 10 nights. In theory "red lights and sirens" is their choice because their research must show that those stories, regardless of how insignificant their impact on our lives, are what people are interested in and therefore push up the ratings. I find that difficult to believe because I must believe that people are a bit smarter than that, but maybe I'm wrong.

We have a staggering financial crisis in this state, 50% of kids fail to graduate for high school, there is a low grade war taking place in our urban areas, and somehow they think a car accident trumps all that. Unfarking believeable.

As for the liberal bend... The caliber of reporter has been steadily sinking, and the editorial judgment is nonexistent. There is hardly any journalistic enterprise worth noting. It's not as if they gather in a metting and say "let's slant the news to fit our political bias," it's that they're so lazy and incompetent that they never pause to consider that they even have a bias.

Like fish in an aquarium they're simply ignorant of their environment, to them every animal must be in the tank. They all go to the same schools, watch the same movies, party and socialize with the same people, and all drink the same koolaid. It's all they know, their worldview.

Considering that I think there is some merit in getting some of these folks out to a range

I know a writer at one of the local net stations, and he participates in cowboy action shoots, so there are a few independent thinkers, but the large majority are ego driven airheads.

dan noyes
10-16-2009, 2:47 PM
Thanks for taking the time to check in and straighten a few things out.

Gun rights in general are really exciting right now. They are the new frontier of civil rights. I know that there is a low signal to noise ratio on most forums and we are not completely an exception. However; if you take a cursory look around you will find that most here are quite libertarian in bent and not at all the "right wing extremists" that are often portrayed as leading the gun culture. We do have our share of the stereotypical gun owners but also transgendered gun owners, Gay gun owners, liberal gun owners and just about every stripe imaginable. We are quite a fun crowd.


Here is one possible story about Gun Rights and Civil Rights and where they intersect.

The Second Amendment actually doesn't exist in California today. I mean that literally, not figuratively. The Bill of Rights were not written to be applied against the States, only the Federal government and California never included a Second Amendment analog in their constitution.

After the civil war the 14th Amendment was written to protect us from state abuses because of the treatment of freed slaves in the south. This is called incorporating the rights against the states. This was the true nexus of the civil rights movement in America. The 14th Amendment was intended to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights. The problem is that the Supreme Court struck down much of what the 14th Amendment stood for and each right within the Bill of Rights had to be independently incorporated. The Second Amendment is the last of the relevant amendments in the Bill of Rights to be argued for incorporation. The exciting thing for all Civil Rights activists is that the case before the Supreme Court regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment actually requests the Supreme Court to re-interpret the 14th Amendment much more broadly than it is currently and return it to its full strength which would help all civil rights activists.

If you are interested in doing a story about the Gun movement and how we feel it is the next civil rights frontier you should contact Gene Hoffman (hoffmang on the boards) he is the president of the California Guns Foundation ( http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ ) and they are leading many lawsuits to reclaim the Second Amendment for California.


As for investigative stories here is one that is particularly interesting.

California has a very restrictive right to carry. Essentially the local police and sheriff have full discretion on who is given a permit. As you can probably imagine this is a commonly abused power. There are a number of lawyers and investigators who have done a ton of leg work in determining correlations between campaign contributions and the issuance of a licenses to carry a hangun. I doubt you would be surprised by the results but the scale is a bit shocking.


Thanks for the answer, Dantodd. Can you send me an e-mail with some contact names/numbers on your last paragraph?

dan.noyes@abc.com

curtisfong
10-16-2009, 2:51 PM
Thanks for the answer, Dantodd. Can you send me an e-mail with some contact names/numbers on your last paragraph?

dan.noyes@abc.com

Heres an interesting start:

http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

curtisfong
10-16-2009, 2:57 PM
As for investigative stories here is one that is particularly interesting.

California has a very restrictive right to carry. Essentially the local police and sheriff have full discretion on who is given a permit. As you can probably imagine this is a commonly abused power. There are a number of lawyers and investigators who have done a ton of leg work in determining correlations between campaign contributions and the issuance of a licenses to carry a hangun. I doubt you would be surprised by the results but the scale is a bit shocking.

And again, this is something the CRPA/NRA should be directly involved with. Why are neither pushing investigative reporters into looking into CCW issuance corruption? Baca's love for Scientologists, the movie/tv industry, and celebrities isn't obvious enough? IMO it is a big deal.

Here we have an actual reporter in the LA area interested in the story... as if it was entirely new to him. Why is nobody bombarding journalists for requests to cover this kind of corruption? Stop blaming the media. There are plenty of journalists looking for exactly these kinds of stories.

curtisfong
10-16-2009, 2:59 PM
Thanks for the answer, Dantodd. Can you send me an e-mail with some contact names/numbers on your last paragraph?

dan.noyes@abc.com

And here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=219489

Vinnie
10-16-2009, 3:02 PM
... We have a staggering financial crisis in this state, 50% of kids fail to graduate for high school, there is a low grade war taking place in our urban areas, and somehow they {the liberal press} think a car accident trumps all that....

yeah,...car accidents..., and this:

http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/nov05election/2007/04/05/newsom.jpg

...from a video of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (doing God-knows-what to that microphone), linked to the website of San Francisco-based ABC7 reporter Dan Noyes.

Now would be a great opportunity for Dan Noyes to do a very serious (and desperately needed) story about the all-out assault of our civil rights by those who pick-n-choose which parts of the Constitution they believe should be the law of the land. It would do those folks up in Washington DC and Sacramento to actually hear someone from San Francisco defending civil rights by defending the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

grammaton76
10-16-2009, 3:06 PM
Now would be a great opportunity for Dan Noyes to do a very serious (and desperately needed) story about the all-out assault of our civil rights by those who pick-n-choose which parts of the Constitution they believe should be the law of the land. It would do those folks up in Washington DC and Sacramento to actually hear someone from San Francisco defending civil rights by defending the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

What you're functionally doing is begging someone to shoot a pistol at the chest of a guy wearing level 4 multi-hit rifle plates. In short, there's no real traction there.

However, a plethora of focused stories (such as the other guy who's proposed stuff on may-issue CCW issuance) is a far better thing. Think of it as scoring hits to the guy's fingers and arms. Eventually your target's going to bleed out going that way.

curtisfong
10-16-2009, 3:11 PM
In short, there's no real traction there.

I agree. Civil rights isn't something that plays on local news. However, the reason it hasn't had any traction (on a non-local news level) is because people aren't casting the players right. They've got the good/bad guys switched up, so that the "bad" guys are the (civil rights deprived) "gun nuts" and the "good guys" are (corrupt) LEO. CGF knows whats up. The NRA? Not so much.

However, a plethora of focused stories (such as the other guy who's proposed stuff on may-issue CCW issuance) is a far better thing.

Yup. Corruption stories will make the local news.

Vinnie
10-16-2009, 5:31 PM
On the issuance of concealed carry (CCW) permits… Here in Orange County, we went from bribery (Sheriff Mike Corona) to an all-out ban (Sheriff Sandra Hutchins). Mike Corona’s pay-to-carry CCW policy was widely known throughout the county, just GOOGLE it. Now, with Hutchins, instead of the right to bear arms, all rights to carry are strictly banned, unless you can “prove your need” of a CCW permit.

Dear Sandra Hutchins,
Do I have to file an application with your office “proving my need” to receive a Speedy Trial in Orange County?
No?... Why Not?....
…Oh, I remember now… because that pesky thing called the 6th Amendment clearly states otherwise.

OK… How about you ban all Free Speech (or religion) in Orange County… (unless we get your pre-approval, and pay you a filing fee)?….
No?.. Oh yeah…. You can’t do that one either…. I think the 1st Amendment prevents you from doing that.

I know… how about this one:
No Guns in the hands of California residents… (unless the guns are no longer than this, or no shorter than that, and locked-up this way, or the bullets are only inserted like that. And, no ammo allowed to be purchased for any gun… unless you go to a “special place”, and leave your thumbprint, and pay the tax, and drag your butt across the doormat before your come in to get it. And, of course, you won’t be able to hold the gun in your hand, or in your pocket, or in your glove compartment…. etc, etc…. unless you know the special handshake, or are one of the privileged few.

Sandra, when you raised your right hand, and you swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”…. Did you mean that you would only support and defend the parts that you agreed with?

Click here to watch Sandra Hutchins as she swore to uphold the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/user/OCSD11#p/a

Yes, I agree that we should air whatever isolated stories (of corruption) that will get people’s attention… but I also think that each of these stories should include at least a nod to the larger principles involved.

dantodd
10-16-2009, 10:33 PM
And again, this is something the CRPA/NRA should be directly involved with. Why are neither pushing investigative reporters into looking into CCW issuance corruption? Baca's love for Scientologists, the movie/tv industry, and celebrities isn't obvious enough? IMO it is a big deal.

Here we have an actual reporter in the LA area interested in the story... as if it was entirely new to him. Why is nobody bombarding journalists for requests to cover this kind of corruption? Stop blaming the media. There are plenty of journalists looking for exactly these kinds of stories.

Because reporters are very used to being approached by advocacy groups and give little credibility to their "pitches." There is every possibility that some of these groups have tried but didn't get through the mass of faxed press releases a reporter sees on a daily basis. When someone stumbles upon a piece of information they know hasn't seen a lot of reporting and see it from real people actually effected and not just part of a media machine it is more real and they pay more attention.

Imagine an ad for a car vs. sitting down at a restaurant and hearing to HVAC guys talking about their work vans and the good and bad parts of them. Even if you don't know the HVAC guys you'll probably give them more credit than an ad from the company.