When he initially approached me, I declined to speak with contributor Joshua Hersh because of past differences with the way Vice News has treated the gun issue. I've also come across my share of reporters who have tried to set traps, manipulate statements out of context, and flat-out lie.“People are waking up, saying, ‘Wait a minute, what do you mean I need a gun?’ All of a sudden they're realizing that this affects them.” [More]
Hersh asked me to review some of his work, including:
I decided he focuses on the facts, plus I've gotten pretty fair at smelling setups and taking care of myself, so I agreed to talk with him.
What you're seeing in his report is a distillation down to highlights-- only seconds of our conversation made its way into this. Hersh and I spoke for around half an hour, pretty cordially, and I expect the others did as well.
I'm glad I did. This piece strikes me as fair, even though I know Hersh and I still have our differences, so that says a lot. I think he did a good job and based on this, if he approaches anyone else on "our side" for an on-the-record chat, I'd say do it.
My only points of clarification: I emphasized the "I told you so" I was seeing was not as gloating as the statement implies. I also don't consider myself a "gun lover" and think that characterization trivializes -- with SEO-conscious editors, I'm not sure how much control Hersh had over that title.
5 comments:
I'll say his article was not as bad as it could have been, and certainly not as bad as articles in this vein tend to be.
He left out a lot of the tired old cliches. Not a single reference to gun owners and penis size. I'm sure the growing cadre of female gun owners might find good news in that. Likewise, no reference to NRA fear mongering. No reference to nuclear weapons or Abrams tanks. Nothing about old fat white guys fondling guns in their basements. No reference to cammo clad ninja wannabes playing GI Joe in the woods.
But that's as far as I'm prepared to go.
I go back to Mike's reference to the unwritten rules of intel:
1. Who is this guy?
2. Why is he telling me this?
3. Why is he telling me this NOW?
Good job of personalizing it with your quote! I really appreciate you pointing out that it directly affects them so their views are changing. The same thing applies to abstract concepts like "background checks" - they support them in theory when it applies to other people, but not so much when it affects them. That is why there is such a disconnect between what polls supposedly show and how people actually vote.
"...I think in six months we'll be able to buy second=hand guns cheap...."
Probably true, although my guess is it'll be closer to 12 months. If - big "if" - that turns out to NOT be true, then we need to start pushing - hard - for more ranges. Which means private sector operated ranges, not government ones, although the dot gov will be involved in zoning for it. Gun ranges as valid, acceptable recreational facilities is a long overdue change to mindset.
I see the people at Vice still don’t risk allowing people to comment on articles like this. It has to be because they have very small penises.
Maybe it is their fragile male egos?
Post a Comment