The Facts Are On Your Side

This week, I'll be at the NRA Annual Meetings in Dallas. Come see me at the Ruger booth on Saturday (10a-1p) and the FN booth (1p-4p) on Sunday.

Here's a piece I wrote in 2003 -- 15 years ago -- about attending the "NRA Show" in Orlando. It could have been written today, so I thought you might enjoy it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When tens of thousands of NRA members gathered in Orlando last spring for the annual meetings, it created opportunities for meetings which might not normally occur. Of course, there was the predictable “protest” by the million moms, who were about 999,980 short.

With thousands upon thousands of men, women and children, all well-behaved, streaming into the convention center,

the media flocked to the dozen or so protestors. I had a rare chance to watch the coverage change over the course of a couple of hours one morning. Watching the local 6:00am television news, the anchorperson reported that there were a dozen demonstrators marching in support of more gun control laws, and a couple of hundred marchers, including the Second Amendment Sisters, who were there in support of gun rights. Those numbers sounded right, judging from what I had seen the day before.

At the 6:30am broadcast – same station – the story had changed. Now the protesters were about a hundred, marching in support of and against gun control laws. Note how the ratio has changed.

Only 30 minutes later, however, someone had changed the script yet again. Now, it was “several hundred marched in support of stricter gun control laws.” This was the same person reading the news, but someone behind the scenes was changing the script. It’s unlikely anyone else made note of the specific changes, but it is certain that anyone hearing that last report would “know” that there was a huge turnout of anti-gun protestors. Also, viewers of the latest broadcast would get no idea that there were marchers in support of gun rights, much less the fact that the pro-gun marchers outnumbered the antis by five-to-one.

At the NRA meetings, I was able to broadcast my “Gun Talk” radio show, featuring a parade of people from various departments within NRA which rarely get any coverage. We talked with people about Eddie Eagle, youth programs, law enforcement, training, women’s programs, and others. Of course, we also had Wayne LaPierre on the show, which is always fun.

I had occasion to share a story with Wayne. On the escalator earlier that morning, I overheard a couple talking, and I figured out that their son had lost his wallet there, with thousands of people moving all around. The father had located the wallet at “Lost and Found,” and all the cash was still there. I commented on that to the mother, and she offered that is was unusual to get a wallet back with the cash.

“That might be true most places,” I told her, “but not here. It’s what I would expect at the NRA annual meetings.” She just nodded agreement.

After I went off the air, I was packing up the equipment when a photographer wandered into the room. He and I were both wearing badges identifying us as “Media.” He struck up a conversation that went in a direction he never imagined.  The badge I was wearing did not identify me as being with Guns & Ammo or Hunting Magazine – a fact which will become important.

Since my background is in photography (University of Missouri photojournalism program), we started talking about

cameras and equipment. He was shooting for one of the local newspapers, so I asked him how the people attending the show there had treated him.

He paused, then said that they had treated him very warmly, and that everyone was willing to talk with him, or to have their pictures taken. It was, he said, the most pleasant group of people he had ever photographed.

“I thought they would think that the media is biased against them,” he said. “Oh, they know that the media is biased against them,” I replied. “That doesn’t prevent them from showing their good manners. They know they aren’t going to get a fair shake from your paper, but they still are willing to talk to you because they know they are right.”

He looked stunned.  

“Look,” I said. “Your paper is going to paint these people as rednecks, yet you just said they were the most pleasant people you had worked with. These folks aren’t dangerous, but I guarantee that the coverage will have that bias.”

He countered that there is, in fact, a big “gun problem,” so talking about that in print is legitimate.

Then you should talk about people who misuse guns, I said, but don’t smear these good, decent, honest people with that brush.  That’s bigotry, pure and simple.

He looked like I had hit him in face with a fish.  Media folks think they are the only ones who can define bigotry, and that it could never apply to them. “You wouldn’t use name calling and nasty cartoons with any other group, but you feel like it’s a free shot to do that to gun owners, even though there are 80 million of us,” I pressed on. “Do it to blacks, Jews, Hispanics, women, or other groups, and you recognize it for what it is – bigotry.”

At this point, he is getting the idea that I’m not with another local media outlet. “You’re with the media?” he questioned.  “Who are you with?” “I write for Guns & Ammo and Hunting magazines.” “Oh.  Well, no wonder you feel that way,” he said, as he literally shrugged off my argument, thinking he could just dismiss me.

“What an arrogant and insulting thing to say,” I fired back. “Because I write for magazines in this field, you dismiss my viewpoint. Have you considered that, perhaps, I’ve spent more than 30 years writing about this, have done the research, and can support my position? How do you support your bigotry in the face of clear evidence that you are wrong? Your own experience here shows that these are good, responsible, safety-minded people, yet you easily slip back into the ‘those people’ mindset.”

At this point, he was on the ropes, but I wasn’t letting him off. I hammered him with the John Lott book, “The Bias Against Guns,” pummeled him with Lott’s and Kleck’s university-level research showing that we are safer when honest people have guns, and then I asked how often his newspaper carried stories of firearms used in personal protection. He bobbed and weaved.

He tried tossing out “assault weapons,” but I countered that the firearms covered in the Clinton gun ban are not machine guns, are used for hunting and competition, and that the FBI says more people are killed by fists and feet than by these so-called “assault weapons.” At all times, I kept my voice low and was pleasant, but I also was firm, and never let him get away with any of the standard gun-control myths.

Finally, he tossed in the towel, admitting that he really didn’t know much about the subject.  Sure, he was probably just trying to rid himself of the maniacal gun writer, but he did wrap up by saying this was the most interesting conversation he had had in two days of covering the NRA meetings. I wrote down several web sites for him to visit, if he wanted more information.

He had walked into the whirling propeller of a radio talk show host coming off the high of three hours of solid pro-gun talk, and he never knew what hit him.

Each of us, in our own situations, can do the same. A quiet, determined answer to every single smear of gun owners is what is called for. A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth.

Sometimes we all finish reading a story about guns or gun owners in the general media, and we know it’s biased and slanted, but it can be hard to put a finger on exactly why we feel that way. A book written by a professor who teaches communication and even a class on propaganda goes a long way in clearing up this issue.

Brian Anse Patrick, Ph.D., of the Department of Communication at the University of Toledo, uncovers a wealth of information in his book, “The National Rifle Association and The Media.” Several dozen of us got a taste of what the book contains when we heard the professor speak at a media seminar at the NRA annual meetings. As is typical of academics, he has names for the specific techniques used by the media to marginalize the NRA and gun owners, and once he explained how it is done, I began to understand.

For instance, he said, there often is a discrepancy in the titles given to he heads of anti-gun rights groups and the head of the NRA. In many stories, Wayne LePierre is not identified as the Executive Vice President, but rather as a “lobbyist” for the organization. In the same story, however, the heads of anti-gun groups are given their titles of president or executive director. Not only does it diminish LaPierre to not give him his correct title, but to use the much less respected “lobbyist” takes him down another notch in the subconscious of the reader.

Verbs of attribution present an other opportunity to nick the credibility of firearm supporters. When a supporter of restrictive gun control laws is quoted, the verbs used are “said,” “stated,” or even “showed.” When an opponent of gun laws, especially an NRA member or official, speaks, the quote is more likely to be followed by “claimed” or “alleged.”

Dr. Patrick has done an extensive study of news stories about the NRA, and the bias he uncovers certainly is persuasive. Moreover, the book educates us in the techniques of bias. Once we know the techniques, we can recognize them, and call it to the attention of reporters and editors.

If you want to sound truly naive, just say, “but we are right.” It doesn’t really matter if the facts are on our side, or if we are right. If we don’t understand the techniques of communication and how the media work, we are doomed to get no coverage or detrimental coverage.

For example, your gun club is having an open house, and you expect to have several hundred people attend. How do you get media coverage? Certainly not by telling them about your open house, and the fact that you will be offering free shooting instruction.  Yawn.

Put a face on the story. You can do nothing that is more effective in getting the coverage you want.  We are a personality-driven society, as witnessed by the fascination we have with celebrities and the goofy “reality” television shows. It used to be called “human interest” stories, but it still works.

Find a woman who saved her life with a gun. Perhaps there’s a woman at your range who didn’t save herself, but who took up shooting as a result of being attacked. Now you have a story the media will cover.

No matter what the event or the angle, put a person into the story. Youth shooting? Give them an individual to talk to. Go against the stereotype when possible by including women and girls. Editors call it the “man bites dog” theory, which just means it’s different from what readers expect.

If you think of the media as your megaphone, and you learn how to use it, you’ll be able to get out the message you want in most cases. It need not be adversarial. On the other hand, all you can do is lead them to the story. Once there, they will write or broadcast what they want. You may take a few hits, but if you understand how the system works, on balance, you can get good treatment of shooters in the media. After all, the facts ARE on our side! ~ Tom

Tom Gresham
Author, outdoorsman, gun rights activist, and firearms enthusiast for more than five decades, Tom Gresham hosts Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, the first nationally-syndicated radio show about guns and the shooting sports, and is also the producer and co-host of the Guns & Gear, GunVenture and First Person Defender television series.

‍