This goes waaaay back, back at least as far as 1985. The problem isn’t just the press being biased against us, or the press being lazy and stupid. The problem is the press has actively campaigned against gun rights for over twenty years.

The press has long given up any idea that they should be unbiased witnesses to, and reporters of, the truth. Since at least the Reagan years they believe they have the right to set the agenda for national policy by means of their media megaphone, as an unelected and unaccountable 4th branch of government.

Just go back to such things as Newsweek’s cover story in 1985 entitled “machine gun USA” which kicked off the campaign against semi-autos. Or Time magazines multiple cover stories attacking guns. And even today, after over twenty years of being corrected by us, how often does the press still confuse semi-auto weapons with machine guns? Look at how the press most recently tried to gin up a new anti-gun hysteria after that month of multiple police killings. That is beyond bias and stupidity, instead the press is the active enemy.

Now by no means do I intend to condemn ALL the press as the enemy. But the default assumption one should make is that until otherwise indicated, a reporter intends to distort the truth and attack gun rights. Be polite, but be cautious and on your guard. The same way you would act during serving of a search warrant by police.

The urge to throttle some reporters is very high (Laura Washington is one) but it just drives ideologues like that further into their fantasy.

As well, a bridge suggests two way traffic, of which there is precious little. I’ve lost sight of the times that I have crossed the bridge only to find my footsteps all alone to show that anyone was ever there.

And it would be nice to write a posting that wasn’t based on an either/or proposition: that we gunnies either like or ‘hate’ the media. I have spoken to media people knowing that whatever I said would get distorted (it was), ignored (that, too) or dismissed out of hand. Mistrust? Yep. Suspicion? M-hmm, that too. Hatred? Puh-leeze, these folks aren’t woth the effort. Contempt, sure: they’ve more than earned that.

Your point is solid, but it’s way too early to trot out the forgiveness. Let the media first try to repair some of the calumny and lies that they have knowingly and willingly published. Let them do that for awhile. Then, and only then, will it be appropriate to castigate our side for our attitudes, the ones that have been formed over the course of bitter experience.

“Samson! The Philistines are upon you!”

The issue of burning bridges is not that we have burned bridges with the media, but that they have burned them with us. Look, I understand they are a significant mouthpiece, but I do not believe they should be given the benefit of the doubt. The media in this country (even small independent liberal media is alot of cases) has a shown a propensity to distort and obfuscate as much as the Big Networks. I understand what you are saying, but the issue is one of trust and respect. When it comes to gun owners and the media- Those two things are in very short supply.

If you choose to write off reporters as a whole, then go ahead and give up your guns right now. We should be actively reaching out to many communities to expand our ranks. And one way they can help is by being neutralized on the issue. And as for being burned on the issue, how many reporters do you reach out to on the issue? I’ve found that when I interact with them, they are very reasonable and open to discussion. I can’t imagine that my experience is completely unique given how many other people I know who share the view.

But, when someone uses obviously twisted data to advance the anti-gun agenda, I will most certainly adopt a cynical tone.

Like the other commenters in Uncle’s thread pointed out, if you keep your parameters narrow enough, you can get whatever result you want. all you have to do is go from “allowed to carry where alcohol is served” to “allowed to carry where alcohol is served, as long as you are in a shall issue state, carry concealed, and wear a nylon holster.”

Ok, the nylon holster was my idea.

In this case, my cynicism may not have been justified, but I’m fine with that. I don’t mind being proved wrong, as long as the truth comes out.

Speaking of the truth, I really thought they would be foolish to give up that research, as it would most likely show them to be in error.

Which I believe it did.