Gun Culture And Society
This Twisted Tale Shows How Gun-Control Propaganda is Treated as Straight News
This Twisted Tale Shows How Gun-Control Propaganda is Treated as Straight News
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍San Francisco, California
On December 19, USA Today published an article titled “Guns marketed for personal safety fuel public health crisis in Black communities.” The byline of the “article” is “Fred Clasen-Kelly and Daniel Chang, KFF Health News.” Most people will not look at the byline. Fewer still will look into KFF Health News (formerly Kaiser Health News).
Even if someone did a quick fact check, they’d find that, in searches, both Google and ChatGPT refer to KFF Health News as an “independent” source of journalism. Specifically, Google says KFF Health News is “a nonprofit, editorially independent national newsroom.” Wikipedia says KFF “conducts its own research, polling, and journalism. Its website has been praised for having the ‘most up-to-date and accurate information on health policy.’”
So, like The New York Times, KFF is an approved member of the mainstream media. In today’s politically charged media climate, that isn’t always a good thing. Most of USA Today’s 250,000 daily print and digital subscribers likely didn’t look that far; instead, most readers probably scrolled down on their phones and digested this carefully crafted approximately 2,500-word propaganda piece written to make people believe guns cause crimes.
They probably weren’t aware that KFF Health News is endowed by the Kaiser Family Foundation, based in San Francisco and currently worth about $800 million, spending around $80 million annually. This “center-left” foundation focuses on health-related issues and claims not to engage in advocacy, but rather produces “journalism” that media outlets publish.
KFF is also supported by large organizations often promoting an anti-gun agenda, such as the California Health Care Foundation, Gates Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and many others. They assert that funders do not influence newsroom decisions or content.
Any astute reader who knows even a little about crime likely paused while reading this “article” and hoped that KFF does a better job with actual healthcare issues than they did with this public freedom issue.
After telling emotional stories about victims of criminals, the article continuously claims guns were the cause, treating guns as if they are evil, AI-driven robots in a dystopian plot. It states: “Harris is one of tens of thousands of Americans killed or injured each year by gun violence, a public health crisis that escalated in the pandemic and churns a new victim into an emergency room every half hour.” This usage of the term “gun violence” is ambiguous, suggesting that guns themselves perpetuate violence.
The article asserts that this issue is a public health crisis just as the Biden administration has frequently stated. The narrative suggests that if guns are framed as a virus, the government may have a mandate to eradicate them from society. Next, it blames the firearm industry for ramping up production, claiming they’re marketing to demographics outside the traditional “pale, male and stale” stereotype used by their detractors. This characterization undermines the idea that gun companies are simply serving law-abiding citizens, despite the implications drawn from their statements.
Moreover, the article implies that the Trump administration “moved to reduce federal oversight of gun businesses” while stating that the “pain of gun violence crosses political, cultural, and geographic divides.” They support the assertion that Black men and boys constitute 6% of the population yet represent more than half of homicide victims, sourcing this from the gun-control group Giffords. However, it doesn’t analyze the relationship between the crime rates and underlying sociocultural factors.
The authors dismiss any discussion about gangs, recidivist violent criminals, or other contributing factors, opting instead to solely blame guns and the firearm industry. The authors assert: “Washington has offered little relief: Guns remain one of few consumer products the federal government does not regulate for health and safety.” This claim finds its source in the gun-control group Violence Policy Center, which receives criticism for being one-sided.
To conclude their piece, the authors feature political attacks against pro-gun sentiments, casually quoting gun-control advocates without providing a balanced viewpoint. They also reference a video by the NRA, citing a Black woman's message encouraging self-defense during a pandemic as harmful propaganda pushing sensational narratives.
In a distressing turn, they mention a report by the Joint Economic Committee Democrats stating that the “firearm industry has marketed to white supremacist and extremist organizations for years,” substantiating the ongoing divisiveness surrounding this issue.
This article presents a one-sided, advocacy-laden narrative framed as independent journalism in a widely read publication. Such pieces highlight the challenges facing the firearm community amidst a media landscape increasingly biased against gun rights and the reality of responsible gun ownership. Understanding the impact of such journalism is crucial for individuals in the firearms community seeking to navigate these divisive times effectively.
As the discourse around firearms continues to evolve, discerning propaganda from fact is critical for the firearms community. This article illustrates the challenges posed by mainstream media narratives that favor gun-control perspectives. It's essential for gun owners and advocates to remain informed and engage in discussions that challenge misleading narratives and explore the complexities of gun ownership and societal safety.