Dear Mr. Turner, et al.:
When I was a young journalism student, I was taught to be constantly on guard to make certain my personal biases did not reflect in my writing or in my presentation of the news. Apparently, no one at CNN ever took reporting, process or ethics classes.
I refer to your horribly distorted coverage of the current efforts to expand America's unconstitutional victim disarmament laws. In every story, you reiterate the stance that these latest encroachments on a fundamental right, the most important right in a free society, are reasonable, prudent and necessary "for the children." We all know that "for the children" has become the blanket excuse to expand Federal power far beyond its Constitutional mandate and erode the essential libertarian principles on which America was founded.
In particular, you run every quote you can get your hands on that imply anyone who opposes these intrusions is either insane or unreasonable. You then try to steer opinion, subtly I admit, by leaving obvious options out of your polls and stories. For a truly heinous example of this, see today's (6/18) QuickVote
Which gun control amendment would you have voted for?
How about putting in the obvious choice of "I would not vote for any gun control amendment."?
You also constantly refer (by implication) to the NRA as being a backward organization, comprised of rabid psychotics who oppose forcing their illiterate, uncivilized, beer-swilling members give up their fully automatic deer hunting rifles. It should be understood that the NRA does not speak for the majority of gun owners in this country. The NRA has had a hand in drafting every major piece of victim disarmament legislation in the last decade. Their perspective is that it is better to compromise than to fight with the force of conviction and moral correctness. Most of us do not share this view, and are not, consequently, represented by the NRA. We view the NRA as the very embodiment of the saying, "Those who lie down with dogs get up with fleas."
Many of us realize that there is no such thing as "reasonable" victim disarmament. We possess the right to own and carry any weapon we desire simply because we are alive. That's what the Second Amendment means. Period. Full Stop. End of message. People have the right to be armed, to provide for their own safety and (if they so choose) the safety of others merely because they draw breath.
Any effort by any level of the government to restrict that right erodes individual safety, contributes to violence and weakens our nation and its citizens. It is an unconscionable trend that cannot be allowed to continue, and here you are pushing it as though it were the Salk vaccine for all our social ills. Journalism is supposed to be objective. If there are still dictionaries to be found in your newsroom, try looking up the word "objectivity". If you are incapable of objectivity and feel the need to advocate a side, how about advocating the side that expands freedom, reduces crime and strengthens the US and its citizens? I know you'll have to give up a lot of scraps from the Clinton-Reno banquet table, but I should think it would be worth it to be able to look yourself in the eye in the morning mirror.
It's sad that the leading voice in today's electronic news media has completely co-opted itself to the government it is supposed to be the watchdog against. If the staff at CNN would open a history book, review the reasons that the Second Amendment was enumerated in the first place, and understand that the expansion of victim disarmament tactics by the Federal government is only part of its ever-expanding encroachment into our daily lives, you might earn the right to call yourselves journalists. At present, you're little more than a press release distribution agency. The term for people who undertook such reporting when I was in the industry was, "hack", and it was a label were to taught always to avoid. It is too bad you never bothered to learn objectivity, accuracy or balance. Could you please cover this vital issue with, if not accuracy, then at least fairness?
Who knows, you might even be able to regain a sense of self-respect and professional pride in the process.
C.L. Murphy
Mesa, AZ