“Many, including me, believe that you simply can’t learn gun safety from a computer — period,” he wrote.
May I respectfully disagree with that too-broad assertion?
In addition to teaching firearm safety, I also happen to be an active Flight Instructor and SCUBA instructor (for more than 3 decades now) and I happen to possess a Master's in Education.
My point is; when you teach a dynamic, possibly dangerous activity like these, a competent instructor is training the student in three major categories: the Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes (SKA) about the subject matter.
Certainly what your sentence is true about the SKILLS portion of a good firearms education, and I'd agree it's absolutely essential to have a trained instructor for the pew-pew portion. But a great deal of the course material can be most effectively delivered by modern multi-media, which nowadays is usually produced using sophisticated, research-driven 'Instructional System Design' criteria and techniques. Multi-media delivery of the KNOWLEDGE and ATTITUDES content of these courses has become the gold-standard in both industries, right up to the airline and fighter-pilot level.
Lee, your article confirms what I have surmised simply by reading and viewing the media's gun-related stories. (The NRA does a pretty good job of highlighting this bias as well. )
So the question is, how do we fix it? Just changing the channel, as you suggest, is all well and good for an individual, but it increases ignorance and polarization. We need to have the conversation with those of different views in order to make them aware of the facts. They truly don't see that the media is brainwashing them with lies.
I've been thinking about this for a while. There has to be some way to create a rallying cry -- a discussion at least -- of what journalism is supposed to mean vs how it is done today. I suspect that, 50 years ago, a journalist couldn't get away with flagrantly biased coverage. There was a requirement to try to get the other side's point of view, right? If you wanted to say that something was untrue, you found someone you could quote and reported that this person said it was untrue. Bias could still occur, but there was some effort towards balanced coverage. All that is gone now.
Journalists believe themselves to be the protectors of our civil liberties, standing against government tyranny. There must be a way to appeal to that, and/or to shame them a little that they have violated their own standards. It doesn't need to start with guns. This bias creeps into everything they write, so we can start with other topics.
The real problem is that journalists have forsaken their neutral position. If they decry those who won't believe the facts, they only need to look at how they write. When you turn news reporting into editorials, the natural consequence is that those with different views will not trust you.
We have literally entered a new McCarthyism, this time coming from the left. The media fuels "cancel culture," and the result is silencing dissenting views by threatening their ability to make a living. They have become the enemy against which they used to fight.
The data-driven approach to news coverage also seems to be a big problem. When your only measure is what drives eyeballs, ethics goes out the window. A sole focus on data leads to bad outcomes.
So, how best to engage? Do we need to take a lesson from the left, and establish letter-writing campaigns that bombard a newspaper or TV news channel when they report in a shameful ways? What else can we do to change this profession? This isn't the first time journalism has been challenged in this way. We somehow got past "yellow journalism," didn't we?
There are essential truths that are ignored by the MSM which would influence any thinking persons' attitude toward firearms.
As a background observation, you will not find any mention of a firearm used in self defense in the NYT. This is important because many local outlets pick up the stories that they run from the Times' wire. That is the sort of bias that sets the stage for most people to not understand the value of a firearm.
In times of unrest, one cannot depend upon the police. This is another fact that ought to inform debate. I think of the (in)famous statement of the Chief in Minneapolis to the effect "It's too dangerous to send my men in there" which should scare the hell out of any citizen, particularly one that lives in an urban setting.
And a fact that no element of the MSM will articulate, even in passing is the fact that police are not obligated to protect you. This is the subject of two SCOTUS rulings and is pretty much graven in stone.
These things provide the background for any discussion of 2A rights and are the things that citizens must be aware of as they assess Biden and the Democrats march to disarm America.
It is imperative that we assert our rights and the clearest way to do that is by declaring Florida a Second Amendment Sanctuary State. There is a substantial effort underway as can be seen here:
There is no “real journalism” any more. The problem with most news media outlets is that they are controlled by left wing liberals who also want to turn our country into a totalitarian state; The Michael Bloombergs, Murdochs, Jeff Bezos, and more like these. Good journalists are afraid to say or write anything contrary to the left’s narrative, for fear of losing their jobs and being cancelled, which you’ve experienced. (Sadly). Media is being used to disseminate propaganda and manipulate the public. I’m glad you found a way to broaden your reach for truth in journalism. I appreciate people like you who spread the truth, no matter how good or ugly it may be. People need good resources on the internet so they can make decisions for themselves instead of what mainstream media wants to feed them.
Sorry, Mr. Williams, the media is the lapdog of our (supposedly) elected officials.
I read a good one on the Interwebs a few years ago: the mainstream media’s job is to cover important stories, with a pillow, until they suffocate.
“Many, including me, believe that you simply can’t learn gun safety from a computer — period,” he wrote.
May I respectfully disagree with that too-broad assertion?
In addition to teaching firearm safety, I also happen to be an active Flight Instructor and SCUBA instructor (for more than 3 decades now) and I happen to possess a Master's in Education.
My point is; when you teach a dynamic, possibly dangerous activity like these, a competent instructor is training the student in three major categories: the Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes (SKA) about the subject matter.
Certainly what your sentence is true about the SKILLS portion of a good firearms education, and I'd agree it's absolutely essential to have a trained instructor for the pew-pew portion. But a great deal of the course material can be most effectively delivered by modern multi-media, which nowadays is usually produced using sophisticated, research-driven 'Instructional System Design' criteria and techniques. Multi-media delivery of the KNOWLEDGE and ATTITUDES content of these courses has become the gold-standard in both industries, right up to the airline and fighter-pilot level.
Lee, your article confirms what I have surmised simply by reading and viewing the media's gun-related stories. (The NRA does a pretty good job of highlighting this bias as well. )
So the question is, how do we fix it? Just changing the channel, as you suggest, is all well and good for an individual, but it increases ignorance and polarization. We need to have the conversation with those of different views in order to make them aware of the facts. They truly don't see that the media is brainwashing them with lies.
I've been thinking about this for a while. There has to be some way to create a rallying cry -- a discussion at least -- of what journalism is supposed to mean vs how it is done today. I suspect that, 50 years ago, a journalist couldn't get away with flagrantly biased coverage. There was a requirement to try to get the other side's point of view, right? If you wanted to say that something was untrue, you found someone you could quote and reported that this person said it was untrue. Bias could still occur, but there was some effort towards balanced coverage. All that is gone now.
Journalists believe themselves to be the protectors of our civil liberties, standing against government tyranny. There must be a way to appeal to that, and/or to shame them a little that they have violated their own standards. It doesn't need to start with guns. This bias creeps into everything they write, so we can start with other topics.
The real problem is that journalists have forsaken their neutral position. If they decry those who won't believe the facts, they only need to look at how they write. When you turn news reporting into editorials, the natural consequence is that those with different views will not trust you.
We have literally entered a new McCarthyism, this time coming from the left. The media fuels "cancel culture," and the result is silencing dissenting views by threatening their ability to make a living. They have become the enemy against which they used to fight.
The data-driven approach to news coverage also seems to be a big problem. When your only measure is what drives eyeballs, ethics goes out the window. A sole focus on data leads to bad outcomes.
So, how best to engage? Do we need to take a lesson from the left, and establish letter-writing campaigns that bombard a newspaper or TV news channel when they report in a shameful ways? What else can we do to change this profession? This isn't the first time journalism has been challenged in this way. We somehow got past "yellow journalism," didn't we?
I just looked into buying a Liberty gun safe. There is so much demand, all orders have an expected delivery time 5 months from the date of order.😮
There are essential truths that are ignored by the MSM which would influence any thinking persons' attitude toward firearms.
As a background observation, you will not find any mention of a firearm used in self defense in the NYT. This is important because many local outlets pick up the stories that they run from the Times' wire. That is the sort of bias that sets the stage for most people to not understand the value of a firearm.
In times of unrest, one cannot depend upon the police. This is another fact that ought to inform debate. I think of the (in)famous statement of the Chief in Minneapolis to the effect "It's too dangerous to send my men in there" which should scare the hell out of any citizen, particularly one that lives in an urban setting.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/minneapolis-police-chief-claims-dangerous-confront-looters-savaging-city
And a fact that no element of the MSM will articulate, even in passing is the fact that police are not obligated to protect you. This is the subject of two SCOTUS rulings and is pretty much graven in stone.
https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect
These things provide the background for any discussion of 2A rights and are the things that citizens must be aware of as they assess Biden and the Democrats march to disarm America.
It is imperative that we assert our rights and the clearest way to do that is by declaring Florida a Second Amendment Sanctuary State. There is a substantial effort underway as can be seen here:
https://gunrightswatch.com/news/2020/01/16/florida/florida-has-been-quietly-passing-second-amendment-sanctuaries-for-2-months-now/
This, Lee, should be high on all of our legislative to-do lists. It sends a powerful message and that is where we have to start.
BTW, is the NRA still in business?
There is no “real journalism” any more. The problem with most news media outlets is that they are controlled by left wing liberals who also want to turn our country into a totalitarian state; The Michael Bloombergs, Murdochs, Jeff Bezos, and more like these. Good journalists are afraid to say or write anything contrary to the left’s narrative, for fear of losing their jobs and being cancelled, which you’ve experienced. (Sadly). Media is being used to disseminate propaganda and manipulate the public. I’m glad you found a way to broaden your reach for truth in journalism. I appreciate people like you who spread the truth, no matter how good or ugly it may be. People need good resources on the internet so they can make decisions for themselves instead of what mainstream media wants to feed them.