National Geographic's new biased TV special, Guns in America

[deerollman]

Sorry for the long post. If you want to use GOA's prewritten letter to complain go to their website. I saw this and was disappointed. As a longtime subscriber, i gave them a lengthy complaint.

http://www.gunowners.org

National Geographic Channel ran a show last night entitled, "Guns In
America." According to the program, there are millions of misguided
gun owners across the nation. Why? Because your guns are supposedly
more likely to harm you than to help you in an emergency.

"As a society, we're totally out of control with weapons," said one
Philadelphia cop who was interviewed during the show. "You need to
limit access that people have to these type of firearms."

That was the basic thrust of the program. National Geographic
recited the usual worn-out factoids that are peddled by the Brady
Campaign. It only cited anti-gun cops. And for every person who was
filmed stating he or she believed in a right to own firearms for
self-defense, the program would cite "facts" to prove that such a
hope was misplaced.

Gun owners should let the President and CEO of National Geographic
know that the channel should stick to showing pictures of kangaroos
and foliage -- images that we normally attribute to National
Geographic's magazine -- and keep his personal, anti-gun views to his
private conversations around the Christmas dinner table.

The National Geographic Channel presents itself as an educational,
unbiased alternative. But "Guns in America" was hardly unbiased, as
can be seen by the following agenda items that were pushed during the
program:

1. "Guns in America" would have you believe that the guns in your
home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to protect
you. This statistic can (surprise, surprise!) be found on the Brady
Campaign website, but its source has been highly discredited. The
factoid originates with Arthur Kellerman, who has generated multiple
studies claiming that guns are a net liability.(1) But Kellerman has
been found guilty of fudging his data, and even the National Academy
of Sciences has stated that his "conclusions do not seem to follow"
from his data.(2)

The truth of the matter is actually quite encouraging for gun owners.
Anti-gun researchers for the Clinton Justice Department found that
guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense, which
means that each year, firearms are used more than 50 times more often
to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(3)

Isn't that strange? You would think anti-gunners wouldn't mind
citing a study that was commissioned by the Clinton Justice
Department! Apparently, the results of the study didn't fit their
agenda.

2. "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by
unintentional gunfire. The program would have viewers believe that a
child dies by accidental gunfire, once every two days. But you can
only reach that figure if you count violent-prone teens as
"children."

In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children
(ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from
choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that
you feed them.(4) Hmm, why doesn't National Geographic want to
report on those killer peanuts?

3. "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of
guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is
quite the opposite (as guns are used at least 50 times more often to
save life than take life). The program does start with a
dramatization of a legitimate self-defense story with an actual 911
call playing in the background. But after that, every dramatization
is about drive-by-shootings or cops being shot or gang-related
warfare.

The lesson for the viewer is: Guns are bad.

4. "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun
"authorities," thus leaving
the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never
mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community,
they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes:

* Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for
sport or self defense? -- 93% of law-enforcement said yes.(5)

* Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to the
purchase of no more than one firearm per month? -- 70.1% of
law-enforcement said no.(6)

* Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce
rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already
reflected? -- 68.2% of law-enforcement said yes.(7)

It's bad enough that a liberal teacher's union controls the education
of our kids in the public schools, and that many of them are being
brainwashed with politically correct thinking. We don't need
supposedly neutral programs like National Geographic peddling the
Brady Campaign's favorite factoids to an unsuspecting public.

ACTION: Please contact Tim T. Kelly, the President and CEO of
National Geographic Ventures (which includes their television
division), and urge him to steer the NatGeo channel away from
politics. If the National Geographic Channel can't run a balanced
program -- where they use real statistics -- then they just need to
stick to filming those cute little animals that helped make their
magazine so famous.

You can go to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/contact
to cut-and-paste the sample letter below into their webform.

[Beckman]

The timing of this special show is quite interesting now that an extreme anti-gun politician has just been elected prez. All of the left-wing writers and editors who had specialized in Bush-bashing and Obama-worship will now have to turn their attention to other specialies. Guess which topic will be on the agenda? We can expect an increase in anti-gun shows, articles, and maybe even movies.

Gun owners should take no solace from the fact that Obama has recently stated that panic gun-buying should stop because gunowners shouldn't fear him. First, Obama has a long history of supporting gun-control; he has supported virtually every form of gun ban, including DC's. Second, Obama has a long, sordid history of lying and broken promises. Third, the issue could easily get beyond his control in the event of a high-profile shooting incident.

Personally, I think that the letter-writing campaign is a silly idea. Consider what it takes for a supposedly non-political organization, such as National Geographic, to suddenly adopt a controversial, off-topic issue, and then present it an such a biased and one-sided manner, abandoning all journalistic ethics. This wasn't just a lark. National Geographic's board won't suddenly decide to be fair and balanced simply because they receive a few mailbags full of form letters.

When an organization creates this sort of a one-sided, political documentary it is evidence of it's institutional belief. When the organization also leaves its main area of concern, that's further evidence. These people are true believers. At best, they will only respond to a rapid decrease in funding, if the linkage with their gun-control advocacy is clear. It's the money, honey, but you still won't change their minds.

Sure, letter-writers will claim that "at least I'm doing something." Well, one can always hire a witch doctor and do the shnong-grint dance -- at least it's SOMETHING. The issue is whether it's something which will work. Puh-leeeeze don't talk about all of those politicians who claim that they read their letters. What do you expect them to say, "I ignore my constituency?"

[olgier]

i cancelled my 2 subscriptions.

[dtedjake]

Saw this with my wife the other night... She watched as the "lady from Virginia" weighed her options after her home had been robbed. The NG Commentator had some interestingly jaded remarks as the victim learned how to shoot a pistol and shopped for one at a gun show. This was where the Philly Policeman made his anti-gun comments.

I had to point out that in Virginia, people like the lady in the video are able to buy and own guns but in Philly proper, (like NY, Chicago, DC, etc), the only folks with guns are Cops and Criminals due to "Gun Control Laws".

Her response: "I'm glad we live in Virginia!"

Overall, I find the anti-gun argument a kool-aid drinkers game. On one hand, it would be nice to see state and local gun control laws overturned but then again, living where I do, we see a dramatic decrease in crime because other locales (DC, Maryland) are "gun free crime zones".

The drive to institute more unconstitutional law infringing upon the right of the people to bear arms is illogical but so is much of the political argument put forward by the militant left. Unfortunately, elections have become purely marketing campaigns but I digress... The timing of this makes complete sense given the campaign promises of the new administration.

NG is just another propaganda tool and it's about time that we recognized that fact...

[johnny.308]

NatGeo and the History channel and the SciFi channel all do the bidding of their parent network NBC, the greenest and most anti-gun network going. Tell NBC how you feel.

[FAL GRUNT]

I sent them a note that I will no longer be renewing my fathers subscription, nor will I be buying their magazine any longer. Destroying a tradition that has up till now continued 3 generations. My family has quite a collection of National Geographics dating back to the early 1920's.

-myers

[bykerhd]

Yet another publisher/network helping to legitimize the Brady Bunch's propaganda. The next question is what organization actually is the parent company of National Geographic these days ?
National Geographic is definitely OFF my future subscription choices. Too bad as I have truly enjoyed reading many of the issues over the years.

[mosbysmen]

i sent mine telling them , no more nat geo in our house

[johnny.308]

Originally posted by bykerhd
Yet another publisher/network helping to legitimize the Brady Bunch's propaganda. The next question is what organization actually is the parent company of National Geographic these days ?
National Geographic is definitely OFF my future subscription choices. Too bad as I have truly enjoyed reading many of the issues over the years.

Your answer is in post #6