Op-ed argues media won't cover gun politics fairly

(AP Photo/John Locher, File)

For people who support the Second Amendment, it’s not difficult to see the anti-gun bias that our mainstream media possesses. They report the number of mass shootings as the one compiled by a heavily biased organization that intentionally inflates the number as high as they can and they do so uncritically, as an example.


In an op-ed, Leland Vittert argues just how bad it really is.

he complete unwillingness to even consider that good guys with guns can help.

Within 24 hours of Elisjsha Dicken taking down a gunman killing people at an Indianapolis mall, we’ve seen a concerted effort by the media to completely discredit the “good guy with a gun” theory.

Case in point, the front page of USA Today, which reads ”Has Uvalde response debunked the good guy with a gun narrative?

That’s not an opinion piece, it’s a news article.

How about this piece, ”Do Indianapolis heroics say we need more good guys with guns in normally gun free zones?”

Nobody wrote that headline, it doesn’t exist.

He’s not wrong, either.

The truth is that the mainstream media doesn’t play fair in the gun debate. They have a side and they’re more than willing to push that agenda without even pretending to be neutral.

After all, let’s take a look at the news cycle today.

Usually following a mass shooting, Cam and I can’t get beyond the headlines focused on that shooting. That was the case after Buffalo, Uvalde, and Highland Park just like it was after Las Vegas, Parkland, and countless others.

Yet Greenwood Park is different.

You see, we had a few headlines for a day or two after that, then nothing. Three innocent people were killed, making this a mass shooting by any definition most people would accept. Why aren’t the headlines still about the shooting in that shopping mall?

The answer, obviously, is because a good guy with a gun put an end to that shooting. He was able to carry because of Indiana’s constitutional carry laws and he proved just what a concealed carrier could do by being in the right place at the right time.


And in the process, he shatters the narrative, the one laid out by USA Today in their supposed report.

I’ve talked about the key difference, as I see it, between Uvalde and Greenwood Park. That’s something you’re not going to see talked about in the pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. Instead, they’re too busy trying to bury the memory of what happened at Greenwood Park Mall.

Vittert argues that the media isn’t covering the issue fairly, and that’s putting it about as mildly as you can.

The truth is that the media has just about given up on any pretenses of neutrality. They might claim they’re neutral, but they don’t do anything beyond empty words in that regard. They don’t put up and they won’t shut up.

Fairness in reporting is long gone. Today, it’s a media that isn’t trying to report what happens but to shape how people respond.

Fairness has nothing to do with their goals anymore and hasn’t for a long time.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member