I tend to be pretty critical of media bias. After all, I used to actually believe that media bias wasn’t really a huge thing, that those who saw it were really just upset that the news wasn’t biased in their direction.

Then I grew up. I saw all the examples of bias as supposed journalists went out of their way to push slanted reporting as hard fact.

Yet over at Ammoland, they’re looking at someone else’s bias, a bias that helps the media get away with stuff you or I never would.

A broadcast journalist using a hidden camera enters a gun show, purchases two “80-percent” gun kits, then goes to the state attorney general’s office where two agents help complete and assemble the guns before firing them on a range—allegedly violating state and federal gun laws in the process—while the camera records it all.

During a Sunday morning interview with a network news anchor, a nationally-known gun rights leader is challenged to discuss a 30-round magazine held by the anchor, on a show broadcast from the nation’s capital, where such magazines are known to be illegal.

A nationally-known broadcast journalist produces a special about gun control during which the video is edited to make it appear several gun rights activists are speechless when asked how felons or terrorists might be prevented from purchasing guns without background checks.

…

A look back over the years suggests a pattern of “gotcha” journalism that seems to invariably get a pass, and gun rights activists are calling foul, as there is the perception that news agencies are using the First Amendment to undermine the Second Amendment. Grassroots activists contend that if private citizens did the same things depicted on screen, they would almost certainly face prosecution.

In other words, it seems government officials are heavily biased as well and are benefiting the media when they conduct actions that would destroy anyone else.

Time and time again, some in the media have outright broken laws, broadcast it, and gotten away with it because they’re advancing the narrative that certain parties in the government actually agree with.

For example, Katie Couric got away with deceptively editing a “documentary” so it appeared gun rights activists had no answer for a question because the judge argued it “demonstrated the sophistry” of the plaintiffs. Yet to call the actual response–the one Couric removed and pretended didn’t exist–sophistry is to take a position on the validity of those arguments.

That’s an act of bias that has no place in a courtroom.

Yet time and time again, government officials–either law enforcement or in the courts–have taken a side.

That means it’s imperative that such officials be targeted for removal from office. Lawsuits, campaigns, petitions, whatever it takes, we need to hold these people accountable for their blatantly biased actions in favor of a blatantly anti-gun media.