Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Required Reading | St. Edward State Park »

Friday, February 9, 2007

No Connection Between Editorial & News. And That’s the Problem.

posted by on February 9 at 9:33 AM

The Seattle Times comes out for closing the gun show loophole on its editorial page today where they ask a central question:

Why are people so worked up about this? A legitimate buyer still gets the gun. The illegitimate buyer does not because he or she has undergone and failed a background check. What is so scary about that?

Bravo. That’s a great question.

It’s a shame they don’t ask it down in Olympia.

Indeed, today’s Seattle Times news article on the gun show loophole bill frames the issue this way: “Backers say [background checks] would help keep criminals from getting firearms, while opponents say it would only further erode gun rights.

The article dutifully goes on to test the supporters’ claim about criminals with a he said/she said on that point. But the article never issues any follow-up questions about the opponents’ claim regarding gun rights.

To challenge the proponents’ claim about criminals, the article quotes some stats that damage the claim and quotes the president of Washington Arms Collectors, who says: “Show me a gun that comes out of a Washington Arms Collectors gun show that was used in a killing.” (It’s a damn good question, and I’ve been told that SPD chief Gil Kerlikowske, the main advocate of the bill, doesn’t have the stats…the, err, smoking gun, on that.)

However, the article never gets around to questioning the opponents’ central premise, namely that requiring private dealers to do background checks for mental illness and criminal records (something licensed gun shop owners have to do) somehow infringes on gun rights.

That too is a damn good question, but it never comes up.

If the Seattle Times news article is going to frame the debate as: “The loophole allows criminals to get guns!” vs. “Closing the loophole infringes on gun rights!” —the article oughta test both claims as they peddle that objective journalism of their’s—rather than relying on toothless editorials.

Posing the question on the editorial page is okay. However, why not force opponents of the bill to actually answer the question by asking it down in Olympia where it matters. Otherwise the opponents’ claim is left standing as the central, unchallenged premise of the hearing.

p.s. Reporters at the The Seattle Times have often complained to me—when I attacked things like their McGavick endorsement—that I don’t get it: There’s a separation between news and editorial. Okay, but I hope you guys don’t go and defend today’s underreported article on the gun bill hearing by telling me the central question was asked on the editorial page. Cake/Eat it too and all that.

Meanwhile, word from Democratic leadership is that the bill isn’t going to pass.

RSS icon Comments

1

Josh Feit is the greatest journalist in the world.

Just ask him. He'll tell you. Over and over and over again.

Posted by Pulitzer Jury | February 9, 2007 10:27 AM
2

True that.

Posted by Josh Feit | February 9, 2007 10:42 AM
3

So we don't know of any specific guns purchased at Washington Arms Collectors shows that were used in crimes... but at least one of the guns used in the Columbine High School shootings was purchased at a gun show.

The pro-gun folks would point out that because the Columbine shooters had a friend buy their guns at the show, a background check there wouldn't have prevented that shooting.

But, that's a flaw with _any_ background check system, done at a gun show or at a gun store. So, it's not an argument against not "closing the gun show loophole."

Posted by asdf | February 9, 2007 10:57 AM
4

Wow, I cannot wrap my head around the Dems not being able to pass this very basic, common sense bill. what a bunch of wastes of space. center-right Dems are total whores.

Posted by longball | February 9, 2007 11:47 AM
5

Please get education on the sub cultural lifestyle and you will understand how guns are bought, sold, transported and used in crime. That is why local law enforcement was at the hearing explaining. Also do not under estimate the gangs. They can blend into any circumstance, just go to court when one is on trial.(yes with tatoos) Please get educated this is a serious situation that must be handled by serious lawmakers not giggly school girls and capital hill bullies.

Posted by C P | February 9, 2007 7:33 PM
6

hellojojo

Posted by LevinBraunz3 | February 13, 2007 10:10 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).