Media bias is one of those things that gets me. I think part of is was the fact that I was oblivious to it for so long, only to feel stupid when I finally started to notice it. It's kind of like how a former smoker becomes one of the most vocal critics of smoking, in a way.
And in this line of work, I see a lot of it. It's a whole thing, and it's everywhere.
In fact, before today, I couldn't remember the last time I saw an actually neutral news posting, either in print or video.
That changed earlier today when I saw this one out of Massachusetts. It's a look at whether or not the 2024 gun control law enacted there should be repealed, and it's kind of interesting because of what's not there.
Bias.
THIS ISSUE BRIEF is part of a series examining a variety of controversial local and national issues, focusing on specific policy proposals that are under active consideration. The premise of these essays, as outlined here and here, is that many important public policy issues are more complicated than the most fervent adherents to either side usually acknowledges, a dynamic that often hinders our ability to engage in thoughtful debate. (Earlier essays in the series have addressed proposals for free community college; free MBTA service; right-to-shelter; rent control; supervised injection sites; approval of school library books; reparations; voter ID requirements; a moratorium on prison construction; limiting investments in natural gas infrastructure, and universal basic income).
The Proposal
Repeal the 2024 gun-control law tightening up and expanding restrictions on the ownership, manufacture and registration of firearms in Massachusetts.
Of course, because it's framed as an "issue brief," that's probably why it's presented neutrally, but still...
And it is, in fact, pretty neutral. I'm not saying you'll agree with everything, which is kind of the point. For example, there are two sections looking at the scientific evidence, both supporting and opposing repeal.
Here's some of the pro-gun research, for example.
What started out as an effort to adjust Massachusetts state law to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, ended up as a significant expansion of Massachusetts’s already expansive gun control regulations.
Prior to the adoption of H. 4885, Massachusetts was ranked by the Giffords Law Center as having some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, with an assault weapons ban, universal license requirements, magazine capacity limits, safe storage regulations, and a so-called “red flag” law preventing people who pose a danger to themselves or others from having access to firearms.
In 2023, Massachusetts also had the second lowest overall gun death rate in the country with one of the lowest gun homicide rates, too – a position it’s occupied for many years.
To be sure, there is a correlation between strict gun laws and lower gun deaths, but it’s not clear that one is actually the cause of the other. Moreover, gun violence is a complex social phenomenon, affected by many, often inter-related factors. Importantly, gun violence is correlated with income and poverty, such that the states with higher per-capita income or lower poverty rates tend to have a lower gun death rate. And even though gun violence occurs everywhere, one recent study found that over 90 percent of all firearm-related hospitalizations of children and teens occurs in cities.
...
A 2024 report by Rand finds that most rigorous research on gun control laws is inconclusive regarding their impact on violence and death. According to Rand, regulations that have been most effective include minimum age requirements for gun ownership and standards for preventing in-home child access to firearms. Other policies regarding background record checks, waiting periods, and prohibitions on gun access for people with restraining orders for domestic violence have credible evidence to support a finding of “moderate” impact. Regulations in all these areas have been part of Massachusetts law for years and are not affected by H. 4885.
Of course, there's plenty of anti-gun research included, too, but that's how it's going to be in anything attempting neutrality. You need to hear from both sides in order to make up your own mind. This seems like a legitimate attempt at doing just that.
The problem is that this isn't the norm. This is unusual. It's so unusual, I felt compelled to comment on it.
It shouldn't be, though.
I get that this isn't formatted like a news article. It's not meant to be any such thing.
But what's so hard about presenting both sides of the argument when you're a news outlet that at least pretends to be neutral? I've seen some of the games the media plays, but at least sometimes, when they include both sides of the story, people can still glean the truth.
Unfortunately, far too often, they rely on "experts" who draw their pay from gun control groups. They parrot "research" from these same organizations. They bash pro-Second Amendment groups over spending money on elections while ignoring what anti-gun groups spend. They make no such attempt.
This shouldn't be an anomaly. This should be akin to what we see regularly.
The fact that it's not is disgusting.
Editor's Note: Neutral reporting on guns is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the mainstream media.
Help Bearing Arms provide fact-based and pro-2A news by becoming a VIP member, and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member