one “moves on” to spread his brand of journalistic feculence to Cedar Rapids
We may have stated in the past that the Moline Dispatch / Rock Island Argus, referred to here as the A-D, is marginally better than the Quad Cities Times (QCT). Unfortunately for the community they regularly provide reasons to doubt the assessment.
The latest example of some editor’s liberal panty line showing is this Sunday front page headline:
The text of the article is about the best we might see out of the Associated Press (AP), however replete it is with gun banners’ narrative. The A-D gets much of its news content from the AP. The A-D editor’s job is to decide what to run, what to run of it, where to run it and what the headline will read. However, the choice of words shown in the headline above is misleading, intended to be pejorative and inflammatory and a purposeful adoption of the narrative of gun banners. Note the headline use of the term assault guns was not in quotes.
The city of Highland Park Illinois has an ordinance banning guns with certain attributes that are no more deadly, arguably less so, than guns without the features. Petitioners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court decision upholding the ban on the basis that those features induce fear in some people and are therefore constitutional. See the National Rifle Association court brief calling for Supreme Court review here.
The banned features include muzzle brakes, compensators, adjustable stocks and forward grips. The features thought fearsome enhance accuracy and accordingly safety. Further it is no difficult extension to realize that all guns or certain features induce “fear” in some people. What other constitutionally protected rights will be subject to arbitrary selective bans? Can other communities add to the list of fearsome features? Can a depiction of a skull and cross bones stenciled on a rifle butt be banned for inducing fear?
The strangest aspect of the “fearsome appearance” argument of gun banners is the concept itself — don’t gun banners want people to be afraid of guns? Do they want them comfortable with guns just as deadly but of a certain appearance? Both Dr. Freud and logicians everywhere want to know.
The headline shows bias because one man’s “assault” gun is another mans defense gun . . . and defense is what those guns and their sale and possession is primarily about, and or the additional purpose of hunting (which is enhanced by the banned features). Certainly more of the banned guns and features are used for hunting than the “assaults” conjured up by the ban proponents. Would the A-D deny that? If so kindly show us the statistics to substantiate such a view.
It is more accurate to say “defense” or “hunting” in the headline rather than “assault” because defense (and hunting) is the purpose of the banned guns and features. There is also no excuse as to space limitations. Defense, hunting and assault all have seven letters. More accurate headlines, taking up less than or equal space would include “Gun features at issue” ” Court mulls gun features” ” Guns on docket again?” “Guns to court again?” “Court mulls city gun ban”
QC Times editorial page editor moves on, our condolences to Cedar Rapids
Impolite, uncordial? Keep in mind that Mark Ridolfi, the now former editorial page editor of the QCT (Friday was his last day) — crafted, was instrumental in, what have you — the position of the QCT as among the most doctrinaire pro-abortion papers in the country to the extent of arguing against the ban on partial birth abortions. Of course he was an admirer of the most extreme abortion proponent in the country, Barack Obama, who as a state senator took a walk three times “on legislation requiring that babies who survived abortions receive immediate medical treatment — legislation so uncontroversial that even the pro- abortion group NARAL did not oppose it” (source here).
Ridolfi’s most recent piece of work on the issue included an August 8th editorial where he on behalf of the QCT defended Planned Parenthood to the hilt against dead-to-rights evidence of them selling body parts of aborted babies. Consider his objective little touches in that editorial :
We know that many Americans believe that a woman’s womb is public domain, beyond the scope of her choices.
Seriously Mr. Ridolfi, if that is the debate then are the confines of a house immune from stopping child abuse as it is someone’s private property and the abuse occurs there? We know you countenance no serious restriction on late term abortion by any means so why should child abuse be prevented when it does not occur in the “public domain”?
We know that Planned Parenthood is the pre-eminent provider of women’s health care across America, spending government money to give poor women access to birth control, mammograms and many other health benefits.
There is so much to, excuse the expression in the context of abortion, pull apart in his editorial. We may endeavor to do so for the benefit of the next editorialist there. Ridolfi however was hopeless. But if he has not left yet we do invite Mr Ridolfi to call Planned Parenthood to make an appointment for a mammogram so that he might learn something on his way out. They do not do them but his statement is nice PR. And the thousands of community health centers that would benefit from the funds devoted to Planned Parenthood’s redundancy will not shed a tear over any loss of funding by Planned Parenthood.
Word is Ridolfi was turned down for the Executive Editor position at the QCT so that is why he is moving on. In his farewell he wrote he was moving on to do journalism in Cedar Rapids — perhaps as a PR flack for the Planned Parenthood there?
R Mall
