Something that's been bugging me: the use of the phrase "gun
lobby" in news stories by NPR, the New York Times, and other
supposedly objective major news orgs. Now, the NRA is psychotically paranoid
about government gun-grabbers, but the fact is, it's a
grassroots organization funded mainly by individual gun
owners. It is not some astroturf industry front; gun companies
are not particularly profitable, (several of them have gone
through or flirted with bankruptcy recently), and they don't
provide the bulk of its lobbying funds. You wouldn't find
anyone referring to the Sierra Club as the "tree lobby," but
the organizations' funding and methods are similar.
The standard journalistic technique in reporting the
supposedly unwarranted power of the gun lobby is to compare
the results of a poll with the actual fate of legislation. But
that ignores the fact that those opposed to gun legislation
(nutball gun owners, mainly) care a lot more about it
than the people randomly badgered by a poll-taker. Gun nuts
will give money to get guys beat in an election, which is the
particularly electrical stimulus that makes the congressional
dead frog twitch.
You get a large enough bunch of mad mothers up there lobbying
for gun laws, they're gonna pass, Charlton Heston be damned.
See MADD, the temperance movement, et al. Unfortunately for Handgun Control, the
class of women who tend to drive those movements,
stay-at-home, middle-class soccer moms, are somewhat split on
whether guns are a) evil child-killers or b) something to keep
in the minivan glovebox to shoot muggers with.
The current method of debating gun laws -- used by pro-gun
control politicians, and abetted by generally anti-gun
journalists -- is to stigmatize NRA lobbyists as somehow
special. That's OK for politicians -- this ain't beanbag --
but it's hardly objective journalism. That hurts the
credibility of the journalists, who are claiming to be
objective, in turn hurting the efforts of gun control
advocates who need good journalism to use in bolstering their
arguments.