California Dreamin ... part 4

Censorship by caricature

By Tanya K. Metaksa
© Tanya K. Metaksa & Associates, 1999

Not being satisfied with reading "Living the Bill of Rights" by Nat Hentoff, I picked up a copy of his "Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee" to read on a train trip to New York City. He tells a story of meeting a Baptist minister, who was on a First Amendment panel with him at a North Carolina college, that illustrates an insidious form of censorship prevalent today in the media. Prior to the panel discussion Hentoff teased Dan Martin, the Baptist minister, about where Dan was "coming from." But much to Hentoff’s amazement, "the Baptist Minister... sounded like a cross between William O. Douglas and William Brennan" in his opposition to all forms of censorship. After the debate Martin rebuked Hentof by saying, "There is a censorship of stereotype of caricature. You know someone is a Baptist minister, so unless you are forced to listen to him, you don’t have to. Your already know what he is going to say. So you shut him off. He doesn’t get into the exchange of ideas. A lot of that kind of censorship goes on--on all sides. It sure does! I am well aware of pre-judgment by folks who may even agree with me. I once gave a speech to the Heartland Institute. I was one of many speakers during an awards dinner in October of 1997. I was later told that many in the audience expected a speech about firearms. Although I did frame the argument in the terms of the firearms struggle, my premise was we were losing our freedom, our civil rights. Here is what I said about rights. "We find our rights are becoming relics. Our constitution is becoming a curio. We find that America is having a fire sale on civil liberties, because we failed to mind the store." And then I went on to talk about the First Amendment and how Americans could not name all the guarantees in that Amendment. After that speech people came up to me and said how surprised they were that I would give a speech that covered the entire Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment. You see, if I had never opened my mouth, most people in that room would have never known my commitment to civil liberties, to the entire Bill of Rights. Today’s press promotes that form of censorship, especially when it comes to gun owners. In the interest of fairness they look for a quote from a representative of the "gun lobby." But what they are looking for is a quote that fits their preconceived notions. In the scheme of things the incident was tiny, but it illustrates the sinister censorship of the press. It seems that in Southern California a church decided to give away trigger locks. The media seized upon this item and proceeded to look for a "gun" spokesperson who would provide the "balance" to their article. When they called a person who they knew to be an NRA member and involved in his local NRA members council, he, much to their amazement, told them that gun owners were not opposed to trigger locks and supported gun safety programs; they were just opposed to legislatively mandating the use of trigger locks. Most news outlets took his comments and used them. However, one paper was not satisfied with the quote and kept on looking for another spokesperson, who would fit their stereotype. And when they found the quote they liked it got printed...thus once again furthering gun owner stereotyping. Yet, what is even more sinister is the silence. More often than not, when gun owners are successful politically, legislatively, or, most importantly, on the PR battleground, the silence is deafening. If it makes the evening news or the front page, the lead is for the opposition to give their spin. This negative media coverage has been documented by a University of Michigan study. This study studied nearly 1,500 articles from 1990 to 1998 in what the author, Brian Patrick, calls the "elite" press. Patrick compared the coverage with four other national organizations: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), and Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). He found what most gun owners know instinctively. 87% of editorials and op-eds covering NRA are negative, while negative coverage of the other groups is only 52%. He blames that on the policy positions of the editors whose tone and semantics, "the likes of which are seldom directed at non-NRA groups." When he looked at news coverage, that is thought to be unbiased, Patrick found that the other groups got direct quotes or attributed viewpoints in a ratio of three paragraphs to one for the NRA. He also found that negative verbs such as "claims," "contends," or "argues" were used when describing quotes from NRA sources, rather than the more neutral "says" or "said." Thus NRA and all gun owners have been and are continuing to be stereotyped by a hostile press. Before a NRA spokesperson or even a non-NRA gun owner opens his or her mouth, the censorship of stereotype of caricature is already going to work. The question is... How do gun owners counter the censorship by stereotype? The answer is worth more that sixty-four million dollar question. Trying to break the caricature must lead to counter-intuitive thinking: rejecting what leads to stereotypes: creating a new way of thinking. Each gun owner must decide how she or he is different from the stereotype the press expects. One of the most obvious places to start unfortunately is with instant attributes: dress, mannerisms, visible biases, choice of automobile, and speech patterns. Remember books are still sold by their covers and the color of that new car sways many purchasers. When the instant attributes have been conquered, it's back to the manner and style of presentation. Think about the quote that will be printed in the newspaper. Make it something that the biased reporter will find unexpected, challenge his biases, and a sense of humor can be the icebreaker. Memorable quotes are never spontaneous, they are edited repeatedly and honed to perfection. That seven-second sound bite should be remembered positively for a long time...after the seven seconds are over. Tanya K. Metaksa is the former Executive Director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). Author of "Safe, Not Sorry", Mrs. Metaksa has appeared on many TV and radio shows such as "Crossfire", "Nightline" and "This Week".

"...87% of editorials and op-eds covering NRA are negative, while negative coverage of the other groups is only 52%..."