Why it's impossible to believe media unbiased on guns

We know the media isn’t fond of guns. That’s blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to look. I can think of one national-level journalist for a mainstream publication that has shown any support for the Second Amendment ever, and that’s Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer.

There may be others but damned if I can think of who they are.

Every other journalist seems to be against firearms entirely. That’s their right, of course, but it’s hard for me to buy that they’re unbiased when they report on gun issues.

Especially when, in an opinion piece, they fawn over anti-gun colleagues.

Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon Jr. published an article on Tuesday saying he’s “excited” that America looks more poised than ever to start restricting guns.

Bacon started his piece stating that the recent bipartisan gun violence deal “between 10 Republican and 10 Democratic senators is better than nothing” but it doesn’t “really address the central problem – the broad availability and circulation of guns in the United States.”

Though the author claimed he’s not worried, because more Americans in general want guns restricted.

“As a result, many in the media, top Democratic Party officials, think tanks and advocacy groups that don’t usually focus on guns are all pushing for policies such as banning the sale and ownership of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Bacon explained.

Emphasis is, of course, mine. However, it’s important to highlight that even Bacon, someone who might be inclined to pretend that the media is simply reporting the facts and that reality has a leftward bias–a common refrain from anti-gun zealots–he still singles out his media colleagues as being against guns.

It’s kind of fascinating, but also troubling.

You see, there’s nothing new in this information. We’ve known for years that the media didn’t support the Second Amendment, but it was also one of those things most in the media kept under wraps. They didn’t want to acknowledge their anti-gun issues because they wanted to appear as if they were trustworthy on the subject.

But Bacon’s decision to casually mention his anti-gun colleagues suggests that they’re becoming far more comfortable with everyone seeing that bias.

That’s a huge problem.

We all know that guns do a lot of good in our world. They’re used to defend human life far more often than to take innocent ones. Millions of defensive gun uses each year compared to fewer than 20,000 homicides on a bad year. The equation doesn’t balance in favor gun control in the least.

Yet if the media won’t report it, many people will remain unaware and will buy into this idea that our nation is basically devolving into anarchy because of guns.

Sure, pro-gun sites can try to counter that narrative, but think about how many people dismiss an openly biased source like us, only to accept one that pretends to be neutral but is nothing of the sort? Do you think that’s going to be enough?

Bacon’s admission makes it clear that his colleagues aren’t the neutral observers they present themselves as, and we should never allow anyone to think otherwise. Bacon’s own words damn him and his profession well enough all on their own.

It’s just beyond time that they become held accountable for this clear and obvious agenda-pushing. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Bacon said the quiet part out loud because he knows there will be no repercussions for any of them. To be honest, that might be the most troubling part of this whole thing, too. He’s likely dead-on right about that. It’s a shame, too, because this was a hell of a republic while we could keep it.