Have you ever wondered how a gun control article gets written in the media?

They typically result when a general interest reporter who knows nothing about firearms at all is given an assignment by an editor looking to push an anti-gun story with a certain angle.

The resulting story might look something like Hunter Stuart’s The Gun Lobby And A Dumb Law Are Keeping Us From Safer Guns which was published in the Huffington Post.

Imagine a gun that a person could leave on his or her kitchen counter, without having to worry that someone else would fire it. That gun exists. A so-called “smart gun” uses biometrics or radio signals to stay locked until it’s held by its rightful owner.

Smart guns could save some of the hundreds of lives — many of them children’s — lost in accidental shootings every year. And they could reduce the number of shootings committed by criminals with stolen guns.

“We see things all the time where guns fall into the wrong hands,” San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr told The Huffington Post. “Since we’re stuck on getting any sensible gun control legislation like background checks, it seems like there would be no argument against this technology.”

Yet thanks to a poorly written gun control law in one state and the efforts of overzealous pro-gun groups — and in spite of the fact that at least $12.6 million of taxpayer money has been spent researching and developing the technology over the past 20 years — smart guns are not available for purchase anywhere in America.

The trappings of objectivity are there, making Mr. Stuart’s article appear to be objective… when in fact, it is based upon ignorance, fear, and inherent left-wing biases.

Cam & Company brought me on for a segment the day the article was published to talk about the ignorance broadcast in the article, specifically, the fact that there are no viable defensive smart gun technologies on the market.

In the interests of fairness, Cam Edwards then brought on the author of the article, Hunter Stuart, the very next day, and masterfully exposed Mr. Stuart’s ignorance of firearms, the NRA, and how laws are made (specifically, who has the power to make and repeal laws). In the end, Mr. Stuart’s political biases were as evident as his ignorance.

Our media is dominated by this sort of reporting on firearms.

Clearly biased reporters in a left-leaning newsrooms think they are “objective” because they hold the same views as their left-leaning peers in a profession (journalism) dominated by far left-of-center viewpoints. When the political viewpoints in a newsroom range from Marxist to Socialist, the possibility of any actual objectivity is all but impossible.

These biased reporters are then asked to cover stories in areas where they are profoundly ignorant. Most reporters have a liberal arts or “soft” science (sociology, psychology, etc) background. They use a journalistic format that helps fake both competence and objectivity to certain extent (“AP style” is as much about masking incompetence and ignorance of a given subject area as it is anything else), but in the end, they know nothing at all about firearms from actual experience.

Asking your average journalist to report on firearms is like asking a virgin to report on sex. They can tell you what they’ve been told, but have no way of objectively measuring or verifying what they’ve been told is accurate. Sadly, that is how the media operates, and has operated for decades.

If you believe anything you read about firearms by someone who doesn’t put at least a few thousands rounds downrange every year, then you’re likely listening to the opinions of the profoundly ignorant.

Take even the most seemingly “objective” reports from the mainstream media with a high degree of suspicion.