Main Page/ Articles/ Links

Read author's note

(at end of article)
 

The Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage

By. Dr. Michael Brown
 
 
 
Guns are a sad fact of life in American culture and are a major topic in modern journalism. A good Journalist has a duty to get involved and make a difference in this important societal debate. By following certain guidelines, the concerned Journalist can be assured of having the maximum impact on this shameful problem.

The first principle to remember is that subtle use of terminology can covertly influence the reader. Adjectives should be chosen for maximum anti-gun effect. When describing a gun, attach terms like "automatic," "semi-automatic," "large caliber," "deadly," "high powered," or "powerful". Almost any gun can be described by one or more of these terms. More than two guns should be called an "arsenal". 

Try to include the term "assault weapon" if at all possible. This can be combined with any of the terms above for best results. Nobody actually knows what an assault weapon is, so you cannot be criticized for this usage. Your local anti-gun organization can provide you with a list of the latest buzz words like "junk guns," "Saturday Night Specials," and "the criminal’s weapon of choice".

Don’t worry about getting technical details right. Many a reporter has accidentally written about semi-automatic revolvers or committed other minor errors. Since most people know little about guns, this is not a problem. Only the gun nuts will complain and they don’t count. The emotional content of your article is much more important than the factual details, since people are more easily influenced through their emotions than through logic.

Broadcast Journalists should have a file tape showing a machine gun firing on full automatic. Run this video while describing "automatic" weapons used in a crime or confiscated by police. At the least, a large graphic of a handgun should be displayed behind the on-air personality when reading any crime story.

Do not waste words describing criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Instead of calling them burglar, rapist, murderer, or repeat offender, simply use the term "gunman". This helps the public associate all forms of crime and violence with the possession of guns. 

Whenever drug dealers are arrested, guns are usually confiscated by the police. Mention the type and number of guns more prominently than the type and quantity of drugs. Include the number of rounds of ammunition seized, since the number will seem large to those who know little about guns. Obviously, the drug dealers who had the guns should now be called "gunmen".

Political discussions on gun control legislation usually involve pro-gun organizations. Always refer to these organizations as "the gun lobby". If space permits, mention how much money the gun lobby has spent to influence political campaigns and describe their legislative lobbying efforts as "arm twisting" or "threats".

Gun owners must never be seen in a positive light. Do not mention that these misguided individuals may actually be well educated, or have respectable jobs and healthy families. They should be called "gun nuts" if possible or simply gun owners at best. Mention details about their clothing, especially if they are wearing hunting clothes or hats. Mention the simplistic slogans on their bumper stickers to show that their intelligence level is low. Many gun owners drive pickup trucks, hunt and live in rural areas. Use these details to help portray them as ignorant rednecks. Don’t use the word "hunt". Always say that they "kill" animals. 

Don’t be afraid to interview these people, they are harmless even though we don’t portray them that way. Try to solicit comments that can be taken out of context to show them in the worst possible light. 

Never question the effectiveness of gun control laws or proposals. Guns are evil and kill people. Removing guns from society can only be good. Nobody really uses guns for legitimate self-defense, especially women or children. Any stories about armed self-defense must be minimized or suppressed. 

Be careful about criticizing the police for responding slowly to 911 calls for help. It is best if the public feels like the police can be relied upon to protect them at all times. If people are buying guns to protect their families, you are not doing your job.

Emphasize stories where people kill family members and/or themselves with guns. It is important to make the public feel like they could lose control and start killing at any moment if they have a gun in the house. Any story where a child misuses a gun is front page material. 

View every shooting as an event to be exploited. Always include emotional quotes from the victim’s family if possible. If they are not available, the perpetrator’s family will do nicely. The quote must blame the tragedy on the availability of guns. Photos or video of grieving family members are worth a thousand facts. Most people will accept the assertion that guns cause crime. It is much easier than believing that some people deliberately choose to harm others.

Your story should include terms like "tragic" or "preventable" and mention the current toll of gun violence in your city or state. Good reporters always know exactly how many gun deaths have occurred in their area since the first of the year. List two or three previous incidents of gun violence to give the impression of a continuing crime wave. 

Little space should be devoted to shootings where criminals kill each other. Although these deaths greatly inflate the annual gun violence numbers, they distract from the basic mission of urging law abiding citizens to give up their guns. Do not dig too deeply into the reasons behind shootings. The fact that a gun was involved is the major point, unless someone under 18 is affected, in which case the child angle is now of equal importance.

Any article about gun violence should include quotes from anti-gun organizations or politicians. One quote should say that we must do something "for the children". Anti-gun spokespersons should be called "activists" or "advocates". If your employer wishes to appear unbiased, you can include one token quote from a gun lobby group to show that you are being fair. The anti-gun statements should be accepted as fact. The gun lobby statement can be denigrated by including text like, "according to gun lobbyist Jones." 

Fortunately, statements from anti-gun organizations come in short sound bites that are perfect for generating an emotional response in the reader or viewer. Gun lobby statements usually contain boring facts that are easy to ignore.

Feel secure in your advocacy journalism. The vast majority of your fellow Journalists support your activism. The nation will be a better place when only the police and military have guns. Remember that you are doing it for the children so the end justifies the means.

Eventually, the government will have a monopoly on power. Don’t worry about the right to freedom of the press, just contact me then for more helpful hints.

Professor Michael Brown
School of Journalism, Brady Chair
Vancouver College of Liberal Arts

Political Satire, copyright 1999, Michael Brown. May be reproduced freely in its full and complete form. The author may be contacted at mb@e-z.net
 

Author's note:

I've been aware of the gun control debate for many years and have spent the last several months intensely observing the media coverage and reviewing the available literature on gun control research. As you can tell from the tone of "The Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage," I am angry and bitter at the way our media institutions are betraying us.

Obviously there are some good journalists out there who are able to write unbiased news stories. I am amazed and very pleased when I see one of these gems in print. In fact, I think that maybe the gun rights activists are starting to get through to some journalists, at least in some media markets. At the local newspaper level, I am seeing somewhat more balanced coverage of gun related stories. Unfortunately, the national television networks and the local TV stations are still pretty bad and that is where most people get their news these days.

I have taken every opportunity to gently ask various journalists how they formed their opinion on gun control or how other journalists in their newsroom dealt with the issue. I have found few journalists who will discuss this issue openly. Some simply maintain a strict silence. Others become defensive and hurl anti-gun insults at even the most polite inquiries. Here are a few comments that I've collected. I'll update this list as more comments slowly come in.

These comments are from ex-journalists:

1. "Very few journalists have an IQ in triple digits."

2. "Journalists know nothing about guns and have no intention of learning."

3. "Most journalists come from an urban liberal background and have had no personal exposure to the legitimate uses of firearms."

4. "The main thing journalists have in common is a desire to tell good stories. Unfortunately, too many people tend to equate sensationalism (or conflict) with news. That's why you see so many reports about crime and tragedy. And one of the greatest controversies in the world is over guns. Another thing a lot of people (including journalists) like to do is find fault. It's not enough to say there's a problem. We want to blame someone for it. Well, who better to blame than a man with a gun? Never mind that he's defending himself or his family or his country. He shot someone or threatened to shoot someone, so he must be guilty, must be bad. People don't like gray. We prefer black and white."

5. "Once the media of communication adopt a point of view, they do not and will not modify it. It's called arrogance."

These comments are from working Journalists:

This comment was from Jill "J.R." Labbe, senior editorial writer and columnist, Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

" Thanks for the opportunity to express an opinion.

Journalists are not different than other people - they have a tendency to fear what they don't understand. I look around the newsroom and I see predominantly young reporters, more women than men, most who grew up in urban areas, few who served in the military, absolutely no hunting tradition. They have had little or no exposure to firearms beyond their use as tools of crime. How do you convey the exhilaration of a grouping the size of a quarter at 100 yards to someone who sees only violence and death in a firearm?

I also see men and women who have a naive faith in law enforcement, that the police will be around to help them in their time of need. I don't have to tell you that that kind of thinking can lead to victim being attached to your name in a crime story. I'm married to a career police officer - 24 years on the street. He would be the first to tell you and anyone else who will listen that the police are good for tagging evidence and tracking down the bad guy after all is said and done. They are under no statutory obligation to protect the individual; their job is to keep peace among the masses.

Don't know if this helps. You can check out some of my columns on the Second Amendment by going to www.star-telegram.com, click on Search in the left-hand rail for back issues and do a search for Labbe."

This short comment came from a working Journalist who is pro-Second Amendment and has suffered under the slings and arrows of his colleagues. He shall remain nameless:

"They will [get] you for this." (profanity deleted)

Email received from retired journalist Larry Palletti:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:34:19 -0400, Larry Palletti wrote:

Considering the anti-gun attitudes sported by so many journalists these days, you might find an actively pro-gun approach of interest.

M. Brown:  Hi Larry, Yes, I am interested to hear your thoughts. I am particularly interested in what you have to say about the journalists you worked with who were not pro-gun. (I am assuming that they were always in the majority, right?)

L. Palletti:  Hi, Mike. Good assumption. None of the other journalists in my region -- Jackson County, Ohio, in the southeastern part of the state -- carried weapons on the job. I did for several reasons, not the least of which were the death threats I got from those upon whose toes I stomped. Generally speaking, though, I carried because self-defense is a basic right. My carrying in a state in which CCW is illegal -- well, you can put that down to civil disobedience. Every cop, every deputy and state trooper in the county knew that I carried. They knew because I told them up front. None ever raised hell about it; several told me they appreciated knowing that they had backup if I were in the area. The sheriff went so far as to badge me as a special deputy, just in case anyone should give me a hard time. Perhaps it was because I'm a retired Army officer that the other news guys didn't give me trouble over the carry. I suppose they figured I could be trusted. (Or maybe they were just afraid of the nut with the gun.)

M. Brown:  Did you ever try to convince them to change their minds? If you did, do you feel that it had a negative effect on your career?

L. Palletti:  In addition to my normal reportorial duties, I had a weekly commentary column. I often used that as my pro-gun pulpit. In effect, I tried to change *everybody's* mind about guns. Mostly, among my contemporaries at the newspaper, the subject of my CCW simply wasn't raised. They knew, but they didn't often mention it except in joking around. I never tried to convince any individual to carry a handgun. In truth, most of them were much, much younger than I, and I'm still not sure they had the maturity to carry. Effect on my career? Nothing detrimental. I made it to the top of the reportage staff, turned down an offer of an editor's post, then quit to start my own newspapers.

M. Brown:   The column I am writing is probably going to end up saying that journalists hate guns because they have no personal experience with them, or something along those lines. Do you you think that is a fair statement?

L. Palletti:  Yeah, I think that's fair. They've spent their youth listening to Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw expound upon the evils inherent in gun ownership, and they haven't worked past the feel-good stage of socialist political thought. To them, the tool bears the stigma -- not the person who misuses the tool. With the disappearance of military conscription, these kids aren't exposed to weapons except for what they hear and see on TV and in the movies. They buy into the fictions because they've not been taught about gun use and gun safety. Nor have they discovered first-hand the lessons learned by the Founding Fathers. Mike, feel free to quote anything here that you find of use. And thanks for doing your homework before publishing that column of yours. That's one of our problems today -- too many writers just crank out the crap without doing any research.   Larry P. East Point/Atlanta, Georgia

mailto: mb@e-z.net

Main Page/ Articles/ Links

1