PDA

View Full Version : Should we protest Channel 5?


Burla
07-13-2012, 5:54 PM
I am curious if you guys/gals think we might accomplish anything by protesting Channel 5 and telling all the other news sources about it? The thing that upsets me as someone who cares about our Constitution is that Channel 5 is not only reporting the news but they have gone too far and are making the news. The reporters are so slanted against our side that they are not fairly representing both sides. Even though they did allow MR Cal Guns to give an opinion in the Lee issue, all the reporters have taking sides and opinions that are not fair and balanced. They purposely avoided telling stats about Assault weapons either pre-ban or BB post ban legal weapons.

Do you think it would be a good idea to expose these Constitution haters or is the risk of bad press not worth it? It seams like Channel 5 wont let this die, now vowing to "interview" or put more slanted pressure against Pamela Harris, however you want to look at it. If this station wont stop coming after our rights by attempting to bias the public with a lack of facts, what are our options? Boycott products advertised on Channel 5 and make it public? Other thoughts or options?
This thread refers to KPIX (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/), Channel 5 (CBS) in San Francisco.
// Librarian

wash
07-13-2012, 6:03 PM
Well we should certainly contact sponsors of the CBS "news" program.

On the other hand, it's almost truth in advertising, you will "see BS" on that station.

otteray
07-13-2012, 6:49 PM
Channel 5 is just a snowy screen here in West Side Santa Cruz.
I think it is DTV 46-1 around here; but I never watch it.
CBS I'd guess from wash's post above?

Faxon
07-13-2012, 6:49 PM
The douchebag reporter at KPIX is full of himself, and is merely "saving" all of California from the crazy people who actually feel that the 2nd Amendment is not "granted" by the government, but is, instead, "described" by the government. My right to defend myself is a birthright of being born in the United States, and no slick tv reporter needs to get in the way of my rights.

dustoff31
07-13-2012, 6:59 PM
A few questions come to mind in considering a boycott of a a local TV station.

1. How would they know they are being boycotted? Yes, one could call them up and say I'm not watching your station, but how would the station quantify that? How would it translate into "pain" for the station?

2. Would they care? If indeed the station is antigun, why would they care that gunnies stop watching? So long as the antis keep watching, they are happy.
Remember, this is a TV station in CA, and in the bay area to boot. It's very likely that gunnies can drop dead as far as they are concerned.

G60
07-13-2012, 7:00 PM
No.

mag360
07-13-2012, 9:18 PM
Its probably the producer pushing this garbage. I read on here the reporter and camera peraon are not anti gun. For what thats worth.

Vlad 11
07-13-2012, 9:40 PM
Well said OP this 'news' station is making their own news.

What is the story behind the story is what i want to know:

Who is pulling the strings?
Why did this issue suddenly pop up out of nowhere?
Why is some news organization regurgitating the issue 5-6 years later?
Did Yee really just happen upon the initial news segment?

Something just seems fishy about this whole thing... we need some investigative
reporting of our own.

FastFinger
07-13-2012, 9:59 PM
I happened to work at KPIX, in the newsroom, for quite a few years. There were more than a couple of viewer level boycotts during my tenure. The truth is they have zero impact.

They will, however, take note of advertiser concerns. So if you want to boycott, boycott an advertiser and let them know why. The only advertiser issue I recall being of any note was some story that was aired regarding an auto dealership or dealerships, they took offense and pulled their ad run. A while later we ran some other story that had a much more favorable angle.

Other than that we had a few picket sign brigades, some letter campaigns, and a few other stinks. But again, they really don't care. If anything it's a badge of courage - "We're pissing off (fill in the group they disdain) we must be doing something right!"

The way to get somewhat fair coverage is to build relationships with editorial decision makers before a crisis hits. Let them know that an articulate, informed, pleasant spokesperson is available when needed. If they have an ax to grind, it won't matter, but most aren't quite that antagonistic. Odds are the typical reporter,producer, assignment editor wants to air an interesting story with both sides presented. However they generally share a world view that really doesn't understand our gun culture. Many of them have had on the job exposure to gun violence - that plus typical Hollywood narrative is what forms their opinion about gun ownership. We need to educate them more about who we are and what our story is.

BKinzey
07-13-2012, 10:02 PM
Which channel 5?

It would be good to know what city you are talking about.

IsaacGlass
07-13-2012, 10:27 PM
This is great information, Thanks! Question, I dont ever recalled seeing one news station reporting on another, why is that?

I happened to work at KPIX, in the newsroom, for quite a few years. There were more than a couple of viewer level boycotts during my tenure. The truth is they have zero impact.

They will, however, take note of advertiser concerns. So if you want to boycott, boycott an advertiser and let them know why. The only advertiser issue I recall being of any note was some story that was aired regarding an auto dealership or dealerships, they took offense and pulled their ad run. A while later we ran some other story that had a much more favorable angle.

Other than that we had a few picket sign brigades, some letter campaigns, and a few other stinks. But again, they really don't care. If anything it's a badge of courage - "We're pissing off (fill in the group they disdain) we must be doing something right!"

The way to get somewhat fair coverage is to build relationships with editorial decision makers before a crisis hits. Let them know that an articulate, informed, pleasant spokesperson is available when needed. If they have an ax to grind, it won't matter, but most aren't quite that antagonistic. Odds are the typical reporter,producer, assignment editor wants to air an interesting story with both sides presented. However they generally share a world view that really doesn't understand our gun culture. Many of them have had on the job exposure to gun violence - that plus typical Hollywood narrative is what forms their opinion about gun ownership. We need to educate them more about who we are and what our story is.

stix213
07-13-2012, 10:42 PM
I actually think the attention to the bullet button will do more good for us than harm, and that in the end this CBS station will have done us a service. So no I don't support an anti-CBS 5 campaign, though if you want to contact their sponsors and voice your specific opposition about this I can't say I'm against that.

I wish it were possible to see how many AR/AK sales have occured due to people finding out on CBS 5 that they can infact purchase these kinds of firearms they may have thought they could not.

Carnivore
07-14-2012, 3:19 AM
Complete
Bull
S**t

As said the name says it all. Boycotting will do no good and only server their purpose of more "DRAMA" to report. Don't feed the trolls they will stop coming around. That works off the internet too.

jeffrice6
07-14-2012, 5:21 AM
From Saguarosizzle

"Don't know if this has been posted already, but found a couple listings of CBS sponsors:

http://files.fraterslibertas.com/Media/CBSadvertisers.htm
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?329757-CBS-Advertisers-(List

Looks like this is not the first time CBS has managed to tick somebody off with blatant displays of bias... "

GM4spd
07-14-2012, 5:43 AM
About as effective as urinating into a fan. Pete

XD40SUBBIE
07-14-2012, 6:07 AM
KPIX is a SF station, they cater to their single minded audience. I let a friend, who is a moderate, see the news articles about Yee and SB249. His conclusion is the same as ours. The media does not get it. They are reporting the story in their understanding, without realizing what SB249 really is and how stupid and poorly thought out it is. KPIX, the Daily Journal, etc, they all seem to focus on the "racist" attacks on Yee, which seems to be 1-2 isolated incidents that the Moron Camp has spun to sound like it is prevalent. If you want to protest the media, I say more power to you, but you will need to do it to all of them. I say write them, nicely, and attempt to explain the errors of their ways, again, nicely.

SanPedroShooter
07-14-2012, 6:19 AM
KPIX is a SF station, they cater to their single minded audience. I let a friend, who is a moderate, see the news articles about Yee and SB249. His conclusion is the same as ours. The media does not get it. They are reporting the story in their understanding, without realizing what SB249 really is and how stupid and poorly thought out it is. KPIX, the Daily Journal, etc, they all seem to focus on the "racist" attacks on Yee, which seems to be 1-2 isolated incidents that the Moron Camp has spun to sound like it is prevalent. If you want to protest the media, I say more power to you, but you will need to do it to all of them. I say write them, nicely, and attempt to explain the errors of their ways, again, nicely.

Thats because they are not doing their homework.

The are reprinting Yee's press releases and our in 'news articles'. CBS on the other hand is actively stiring the pot for some reason. I would love to know why.

It may just be that this issue is a way to raise ratings in a slow summer season. You want a reaction, run a gun story. They couldnt be happier with their mischeif. Sponsers are the way to go, if at all.

dantodd
07-14-2012, 6:27 AM
If/when CBS-5 (San Francisco) runs editorials etc. directly attacking gun rights look at a boycott. The BB story may well have been useful and I think that rocking the boat at this juncture would be wasting precious political capital.

Think about it. Yee is dancing and ying to disentangle himself from this big hot mess of a bill and has already rewritten it trying to limit the scope. He knows that gu. Rights are case becoming a third rail issue, even in California. The TV station is seeing what is happening as evidenced by their follow-up article. If you want to use up any political Capitol use it to keep the pressure on Yee. Touching the third rail should be more than just a little painful. Having to fire his chief of staff would be a good start but should not be the end of Yee's payment for attacking our rights. Keep the pressure on him and make sure that his gubernatorial aspirations are suffocated.

SanPedroShooter
07-14-2012, 6:44 AM
Agreed. This **** tornado has raised some issues that need resolving. Obviously in our favor. I believe that the law, if not the truth, is on our side.

Burla
07-14-2012, 12:08 PM
Well said OP this 'news' station is making their own news.

What is the story behind the story is what i want to know:

Who is pulling the strings?
Why did this issue suddenly pop up out of nowhere?
Why is some news organization regurgitating the issue 5-6 years later?
Did Yee really just happen upon the initial news segment?

Something just seems fishy about this whole thing... we need some investigative
reporting of our own.

You really have a good point, something like this would get other stations interested if it bear fruit. If CA had all the facts on these guns, I doubt there would be any public pressure against them. How many tax dollars they bring the state, the fact that no known BB AR's have been used in crime to my knowledge, the fact that so few Assault rifles were ever responsible for any murders in comparison to other guns, and the main fact that our laws prevent government intrusions like they have in China. Do you think the Chinese government would act the way they do to their citizens if 45% of them were armed?

Perhaps for the immediate future we can identify CBS5's biggest advertisers and flood them with calls. It wont work unless we all do it on a certain day, 1000 calls would send a message!!

Who's in? Their constant attack on our rights deserves a response other then being afraid of what they can do to us.

.

wjc
07-14-2012, 5:44 PM
I already boycott KPIX and the other mainstream news channels.

The only *good* thing I ever saw on that channel was when Dana King rode a moto at Leguna Seca. :D

SilverTauron
07-14-2012, 5:49 PM
I haven't watched a TV news program in 4 months. It seems I am missing nothing of note.

Perhaps my perspective is flawed, but the news stations operate on the Almighty Dollar like every other business. Gun owners are a minority in anti-gun places;the things said here about CA media can be equally true of Chicago press outlets. Way I view it, the station producer's done their math and figured antagonizing the minor sliver of viewers who own guns is < the positive viewership of millions of ambivalent and anti-gun residents. Thus enhancing ad revenue, which makes the station boss look good.

Picket signs outside the building only helps their cause. It convinces more people to watch the station, since good or ill the story MUST be intriguing if folks are willing to picket over it.

wjc
07-14-2012, 7:33 PM
I haven't watched a TV news program in 4 months. It seems I am missing nothing of note.

Perhaps my perspective is flawed, but the news stations operate on the Almighty Dollar like every other business. Gun owners are a minority in anti-gun places;the things said here about CA media can be equally true of Chicago press outlets. Way I view it, the station producer's done their math and figured antagonizing the minor sliver of viewers who own guns is < the positive viewership of millions of ambivalent and anti-gun residents. Thus enhancing ad revenue, which makes the station boss look good.

Picket signs outside the building only helps their cause. It convinces more people to watch the station, since good or ill the story MUST be intriguing if folks are willing to picket over it.

...and right there is their weakness.

FastFinger
07-14-2012, 7:48 PM
Perhaps my perspective is flawed, but the news stations operate on the Almighty Dollar like every other business. Gun owners are a minority in anti-gun places;the things said here about CA media can be equally true of Chicago press outlets. Way I view it, the station producer's done their math and figured antagonizing the minor sliver of viewers who own guns is < the positive viewership of millions of ambivalent and anti-gun residents. Thus enhancing ad revenue, which makes the station boss look good.


It's not quite that sinister. Yes - the dollars matter, but day to day the troops in the newsroom care most about ratings. At one time they would survey the community and try to cover stories that were important - taxes, education, infrastructure etc. But as competition and culture changed, so did the news, which morphed from enterprise reporting with hints of journalism to more sensationalism, lifestyle, and entertainment.

Like you, me, and pretty much most people, newsfolk would like to work on things that interest them personally, as well as stories that will enhance their face time and further their career. It's safe to speculate that the vast majority of them were not raised around guns, and all the really know about them is what they see at a crime scene or on Netflix, neither venue being a good reflection of responsible gun ownership.

It is not as if some memo comes down from on high and directs them "This month we will screw over gun owners!" However most of the people in the newsroom reflect most Californians, and even a bit more "progressive" than average. They hang out with like minded people, party with them, went to school with them, drink with them - it's the fish tank they swim in and to them anti-gun is what what they know and what they're comfortable with. For many it is near impossible to even imagine a responsible gun owner - to them that's as unlikely as Kim Kardashian curing cancer. Certainly there are those that will make an effort to understand views that run counter to their own, but they're in the minority.

Screaming at them, picketing, angry email etc. will probably not change their minds -under some circumstances it may get them to air further coverage - but odds are that coverage will reinforce the initial bias, with the bias proportional to the anger of the protests. When some Calgunners post a copy or summation of their email sometimes they're cringe worthy, we really shoot ourselves in our feet with the nasty and vile comments. Sure we're mad - rightfully so - but one or two ugly missives will undo dozens of well versed others.

There are people who have the talent to persuade others, the innate or learned ability to frame an argument in such a way that those with opposing views will stop for a second and actually listen. Not always easy with a divisive issue as firearm ownership.

The 2A community is wise to identify those folks and help maneuver them to get in front of microphones and cameras.

Mesa Tactical
07-15-2012, 7:20 AM
Angry e-mails, boycotts, fax machine vandalism, impotent ranting on message boards: none of these will persuade anyone of anything. And isn't that the goal here, persuading people to our point of view?

What is hoped to be achieved by knee-jerk anger? To most people, it just makes one look like an angry knee-jerker.

curtisfong
07-15-2012, 7:59 AM
Find people who work in the newsroom and take them to the range.

Everything else is a waste of time and effort.

Maestro Pistolero
07-15-2012, 11:00 AM
They will, however, take note of advertiser concerns. So if you want to boycott, boycott an advertiser and let them know why. I have long thought that this would be an effective strategy, both locally and nationally.

Burla
07-15-2012, 12:23 PM
My take on this thread as a hole is if we are going to do something it should be contact advertisers. I hear some people talking about trying to get people to understand our side, but Channel 5 will never be open to our side. I have worked in PR and have tried political outreach before and to be honest, it rarely works. Usually if someone is against you, they aren't going to change their mind just because you tell them your side. I will do some research and identify Channel 5 CBS largest advertisers, and start another thread to see if we have support enough to go forward.

I will highly suggest if we do this thing for people who contact the advertiser/s to be professional with a tone of concern as opposed to being confrontational. We don't need talk of Commy's or race. As for you guys who think nothing will work, I say why not try? The current situation is they are going unchecked against our rights, any other group would be kicking and fighting. We at least owe it to ourselves to be heard. Don't we? You guys/gals in or out?

.

hoffmang
07-15-2012, 1:39 PM
Ever since the first story, KPIX has done a good job of keeping this balanced. We're getting more good than harm from this. Each time more Californian's learn that ARs and AKs can be legal in CA. You'll also note the lack of public outcry.

-Gene

Burla
07-15-2012, 1:42 PM
Gene thanks for weighing in, put this possible tool on the shelf for the future if we need it. Close thread.

wjc
07-15-2012, 3:34 PM
Ever since the first story, KPIX has done a good job of keeping this balanced. We're getting more good than harm from this. Each time more Californian's learn that ARs and AKs can be legal in CA. You'll also note the lack of public outcry.

-Gene

I think we can thank Barry Sotero and his well run administration for not only the lack of outcry but for the increase in gun sales and acceptance.

Peeps be armin' up!

:43:

ldivinag
07-15-2012, 7:18 PM
Which channel 5?

It would be good to know what city you are talking about.


KPIX chan 5 is in san francisco bay area.
'
and IIRC, it is owned and operated (O&O) by mama CBS itself...

dantodd
07-15-2012, 8:21 PM
M. As for you guys who think nothing will work, I say why not try? The current situation is they are going unchecked against our rights, any other group would be kicking and fighting. We at least owe it to ourselves to be heard. Don't we? You guys/gals in or out?

.

work at what? The coverage has been, generally, good and positive for CA gunnies. Don't you want news articles that say "People in CA can own ARs and AKs despite the so-called Assault Weapons Ban."? Think about what you're asking. First of all it is very unlikely to have an impact and will be wasted energy that COULD be we'd elsewhere to better effect. Even if it is "effective" all it will do is make CBS5 stop covering gun rights issues all together. We are right, we are winning, people will see the truth if they are exposed to stories about gun rights. We want all the news pieces we can get. Even antis will try to be "fair" and that means the gun rights community get some opportunity to speak, this is always a good thing because our message is righteous and people will see that.

gunsmith
07-15-2012, 10:07 PM
I look dumb, but its just a disguise.

I once had a CBS reporter in my cab, I asked why it seems reporters in general, and CBS in particular, are incapable of fairly reporting gun issues. She had no good reason. (this was about 5 yrs ago)
She also claimed "no liberal bias" I had to laugh, all TV news is generated from reading the NY Times, I read the NY Times daily for 20 yrs & if it wasn't in the old grey lady it wasn't on TV news.

If Gene feels they're doing an ok job that's good enough for me, I do watch CBS 11 o'clock news here in
northern NV - they seem more inclined to ignore gun issues then anything else.

FastFinger
07-16-2012, 5:59 AM
I look dumb, but its just a disguise.

I once had a CBS reporter in my cab, I asked why it seems reporters in general, and CBS in particular, are incapable of fairly reporting gun issues. She had no good reason. (this was about 5 yrs ago)
She also claimed "no liberal bias" I had to laugh, all TV news is generated from reading the NY Times, I read the NY Times daily for 20 yrs & if it wasn't in the old grey lady it wasn't on TV news.

If Gene feels they're doing an ok job that's good enough for me, I do watch CBS 11 o'clock news here in
northern NV - they seem more inclined to ignore gun issues then anything else.

There are no CBS network owned stations in Nevada, there are only CBS affiliates there. As affiliates they have access to CBS net news programming, and may occasionally contribute content to CBS net, but otherwise they generate their own content and make their own editorial decisions.

On the other hand KPIX is now owned by the CBS network, but even then most news decisions are local.

CBS network was the first major TV news org (excepting Fox) to cover Fast & Furious.


My guess is that most reports would probably claim they have no bias - and they'd all be lying. Everyone has a biased view of all mortal actions, we can not help but see the world through our individual filters. A diligent and honest journalist will work at compensating for their bias when reporting on controversial stories, but that does require that they're self aware and honest enough with themselves to realize their prejudices. The report who tells you they have no biases are the ones who will air the most lopsided stories.

huntercf
07-16-2012, 8:54 AM
If you want to boycott them the only way to make them feel it is to go after their ad revenue (i.e. boycott advertisers). If enough people complain to the advertisers and they start pulling their ads that will get their attention, anything else they will savor...bad press is still press.

curtisfong
07-16-2012, 9:05 AM
Boycotting has never worked, and will never work.

JackRydden224
07-16-2012, 10:06 AM
Boycotting does not work, much like prohibition. You will only draw attention to an issue that doesn't need more attention. We do not need CBS to portray us as a bunch of crazed gun manics boycotting them because they exercised their first amendment rights.

FastFinger
07-16-2012, 4:34 PM
Boycotting does not work, much like prohibition. You will only draw attention to an issue that doesn't need more attention. We do not need CBS to portray us as a bunch of crazed gun manics boycotting them because they exercised their first amendment rights.

Agreed in this case. As Gene points out the KPIX follow up stories have been more even handed.

Future incidents need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but I'd say that generally speaking boycotting a news station isn't that effective, their value is pretty much limited to their coverage of the boycott, and since they "own the ink" it's doubtful the boycott will receive anywhere near fair coverage.

If they boycott is large enough it might attract the attention of competing news outlets, but that rarely happens. Honor among thieves and all that.

Boycotting a sponsor is probably a better avenue since that has a chance of impacting ad sales, but then the boycott would be hurting an innocent 3rd party. Not a way to win hearts and minds.

Finally in order to have any impact you need a lot of people to join in on the boycott, and their participation has to be measurable. Lots of feet on a picket line, or a significant drop in sales, etc. If you do manage grab attention in announcing the boycott, but then fail to deliver protesters etc. you come off looking weak.

For the issues we're interested in, in matters of the press, in the metro areas of California, boycotts aren't a wise tactic.