Consider this not only above-the-fold but masthead lead story on October 6 in the Dispatch-Argus, not the worst Quad Cities based newspaper but often enough.
The non-byline AP article, which would mean it is intended to be a straight “wire-service” report takes an arguable snipe characterizing the NRA. We think it emits from a presumption at the AP that new control proposals equates to valuable or effective and Second Amendment rights are a non-issue. But we won’t argue that little nuance. Instead, check out the inclusion of the “Mass shootings” graph included with the story, expanded for ease of examination below:
Can the editor(s) with straight faces maintain that the above graphic has any honest application to the article, or for that matter rates inclusion given the singularity of the Las Vegas massacre? Could it be be intended to suggest at a glance that bump stocks are involved in the trumped up graph and a ban would prevent such an expansive definition of mass shootings? Might it imply visually that comparable “mass shootings” to the Las Vegas massacre are that frequent. Decent editing as claimed to be a standard of the publication (see below) would avoid such unfounded implication in a supposed news story.
The graphic, is in the context of the use of bump stocks in the Las Vegas massacre, however 1) no authority maintains the banning of bump stocks would have prevented the extent of the willful carnage by gunfire of this planned massacre and, 2) there is no statistic indicating bump stocks have ever been used in any of the other incidents depicted in the graph.
Another corruption is that the information conveyed in the graph does not convey that the singular events include, as is often the case, the death or injury of the assailant by suicide or how many were a combination of police involvement. It does not even clarify whether the injuries were by targeted (intended victim) gunfire.
With that glaring front page bias only a few days old and others a virtual everyday occurrence, often involving the AP but regardless as such is not an exoneration of the D-A’s editors, the editorial page editor goes on to set forth in the Sunday edition this truly ridiculous claim (highlighted) about all editing at his newspaper. Read the entire article for several good guffaws. Keep in mind as well that bias is reflected also by failures to follow-up with balanced information when it becomes available on matters under contention and when corrections are made they should be as prominent as the error.
