NY Times breaks with tradition and publishes front page editorial calling for gun regulation

Kylabelle

unaccounted for
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
26,200
Reaction score
4,015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ial-calling-u-s-gun-laws-a-national-disgrace/

Newspapers such as The Washington Post and the New York Times have a wall between the news and opinion sections — and front pages have, in modern times, traditionally belonged to the news department. But on Saturday morning, the Times is breaking with that tradition with the first front page editorial since 1920, calling for tighter gun control laws after the shootings in Colorado Springs, Colo., and San Bernardino, Calif., over the past eight days.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Extra! Extra! Old Gray Lady comes out in favor of more government regulation! Film at Eleven!

So after ninety-five years of at least making a token effort, the wall between news and editorial has finally been completely demolished, and such action will be praised by many people because it's for a "good cause."

Yay?
 

Kylabelle

unaccounted for
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
26,200
Reaction score
4,015
Yeah, I know, it's totally meaningless. :sarcasm

Of course, the NY Times is not the final word on anything. And predictably there are people who will completely discount this.

Because I knew that I almost didn't post this. But given that this is a writers' forum I figured it might be of interest, to some. If nothing else, it speaks to the sense that changes are needed, and that that's being noticed and acknowledged by an influential public voice. Whether that voice is influential to you or not is your personal response and right, of course, but doesn't affect the significance of the decision. Nor does your opinion about the way the Times publishes opinion. This is an editorial decision they took that has *some* meaning.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I find it far from totally meaningless. I think my second paragraph made that clear.

At least it's not Ben Carson going off on a hair trigger.
 

Ravioli

Crazy Cat Lady
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
2,699
Reaction score
423
Location
Germany, native Israeli
Website
annagiladi.wixsite.com
Counting down till someone screeches that his right to own more guns than he can fire just in case a bad guy walks in - or because collecting lethal weapons and their ammo is cute - is more important than the right of others to not die in one of the many daily gun incidents.

Most self defense scenarios don't require more than a handgun. There is no reasonable justification to have a whole locker of lethal weapons of all sizes including assault rifles, when statistics throw dead people at you by the thousands because those silly hobbies, HOBBIES, won't be regulated for the sake of HUMAN LIFE. Aww is your right to gun down deer with an AK-47 more important than a classroom full of children? Sorry I tried to take that away from you. Sho shorrie. Aww is your right to feel all tough posing with your arsenal more important for your quality of life, than the survival of your neighbor's loved ones is to theirs? Sho shorrie, I'll shut up. Aww is your paranoia that the government may turn on you while outgunning you no matter what weapons you have, more justified than the fear of parents when they send their kids to school nowadays? Sorry, I'll be over here shutting up. Screw human life. Pointlessly enforcing rights nobody needs to the extent they currently have, is more important than human life.

Other countries manage without guns, why are many americans so hysterically clinging to not just a Glock, but M16s? A "right"? That's adorable, you won't see me screeching for my right to own a pet tarantula if pet tarantulas kill thousands of people yearly. Sometimes, common sense outweighs the importance of enforcing a right I don't really need. Having a right doesn't mean one must enforce it at all costs if nobody gets hurt by getting another hobby while people keep getting murdered by the thousands because this here hobby isn't being regulated.

Nobody is even calling for a ban. Just stricter rules. I don't see the problem with that given how the current ease of obtaining and wielding these things costs so many lives. What's so horrible about having a constitutional amendmend adjusted to current requirements of society? What could possibly be so horrible about having a harder time getting a lethal weapon, if the benefit is having to bury fewer people? Rights have been amended and adjusted over time, all the time, in all fields, why is an adjustment to gun laws for the protection of human life, such a horrible thought to some? Why must that right remain untouched just because it's in a constitution that is desperately unfit for 2015 where guns have become automatic and mental health is going down the drain?

Seriously, one might think a piece of paper or a hobby is more important than the protection of human life.
 

Kylabelle

unaccounted for
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
26,200
Reaction score
4,015
No, your second paragraph didn't make that clear, at all.

So, tell us, if you can, in plain terms, what significance this has for you?

ETA: Ravioli, my apologies, I was replying to Don. Haven't read your post yet. :)
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
No, your second paragraph didn't make that clear, at all.

So, tell us, if you can, in plain terms, what significance this has for you?

ETA: Ravioli, my apologies, I was replying to Don. Haven't read your post yet. :)

So after ninety-five years of at least making a token effort, the wall between news and editorial has finally been completely demolished, and such action will be praised by many people because it's for a "good cause."

I don't know how I could possibly state that more clearly.
 

Cramp

Pain in the writing wrist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
688
Reaction score
72
Location
UK
No, it is clearly an editorial piece. It's placement has been moved temporarily because of the gravity of the situation and to make a statement. I don't believe it signifies a complete demolishing of the wall between the two.
 

T Robinson

Born long ago, in a different era
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
1,282
Reaction score
212
Location
Southern USA
So after ninety-five years of at least making a token effort, the wall between news and editorial has finally been completely demolished, and such action will be praised by many people because it's for a "good cause."

I don't know how I could possibly state that more clearly.

I have to agree with Don, in this case. My degree was in journalism many years ago and we were taught that reporters were to be objective and just report the facts, letting people decide for themselves.

Mainstream media has not been objective for many years. They all have an agenda. Instead of true objectivity, they slant to their views.

Look for yourselves at one event, "reported" in different sources. In some outlets, it sounds like the end of the world, in others, it is as if nothing happened.

YMMV
 

Cramp

Pain in the writing wrist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
688
Reaction score
72
Location
UK
I think there needs to be a clever aphorism on the lines of: "People who think they are reading objective news are really just agreeing with the viewpoint." or something...
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,099
Reaction score
8,848
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Have people got opinions on the content of the editorial?

well it's more a call to action than any real revelation.

it serves its purpose as a highly-visible objection to the status quo but it really comes down to the harsh truth about representative democracy. if we, in fact, reach a critical mass where the popular will exists for significant reform, it has to be translated into votes that entrust politicians to do the right thing. and politicians are scum.

the other harsh truth is that even significant reform, short of a draconian (and unrealistic) program of confiscation, will leave nearly half a billion guns available to the citizens of a very divided and rather hateful nation.
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
If a significant majority of the population is in agreement it goes beyond an editorial and becomes a call to action. I firmly believe that a majority of Americans feel that it is time for better checks and regulations while a handful of special interests are waving their hands and shouting themselves purple faced to distract the undecided.

Eventually the mass shootings are going to tip the scale of public opinion. And there will be another one. Soon. I'm betting before Christmas day. It doesn't matter by whom, anymore. Although it was kind of comical to see the relief the wing nuts took in the fact that the last wacko shooters had Islamic roots. As if that fact obliterated the other forty shootings that went before it and were committed by wackos with other religious beliefs. Or by wackos with mental health issues, racial issues, gov issues or dating issues, property issues.

To be extra confrontational, I say let's count the shootings that take only two or three lives, the toddlers who blow their brains out with daddy's handgun, the teenage gang- bangers, the western Kansas cowboys who get on the deer stand at five a.m., load their rifles and pop a couple of beers. Let's even count the brandishings, the road rage incidents, the armed neighborhood arguments that are defused before going bloody. I have seen two of those in my lifetime and believe me, they take a toll.

Can you guarantee that the next gun incident won't be in your neighborhood, at your favorite restaurant, the gas station on the corner, your aging parent's neighborhood? At your teen's next party? All of the prayers, bluster and hand wringing are doing nothing to insure public safety and, above all, we have a right to that under the constitution.

Continuing to blow on about the same old, same old is like turning your back on a tsunami. I'm talking about the kind of shift in public opinion that has caught the conservatives, the rigidly religious, the intolerant, the good ole boy confederate flag wavers, the Republican party, square in the buttocks so many times in the last decade. Better switch on something besides Fux News. Look over your shoulder. The times they are a changing. --s6
 
Last edited:

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,877
Reaction score
5,196
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
well it's more a call to action than any real revelation.

it serves its purpose as a highly-visible objection to the status quo but it really comes down to the harsh truth about representative democracy. if we, in fact, reach a critical mass where the popular will exists for significant reform, it has to be translated into votes that entrust politicians to do the right thing. and politicians are scum.

the other harsh truth is that even significant reform, short of a draconian (and unrealistic) program of confiscation, will leave nearly half a billion guns available to the citizens of a very divided and rather hateful nation.

Good points both.

I will say to the second that even if the land is flooded, plugging the hole in the dam is at least a start.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,877
Reaction score
5,196
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
A for what to do about the weapons already flooding our nation, that seems to me a secondary consideration after the tide itself is stemmed.

Maybe weapons makers could stop making ammunition for older guns. That way no one has to lose their toys. And I can't see even the profiteers at the NRA objecting to new boutique marketing.

But again, a matter for later.
 

asroc

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
293
Have people got opinions on the content of the editorial?

Pretty weak. If they had to compromise their journalistic integrity do this they should have at least made it worthwhile. I suppose it's only fitting that they put it right next to the pictures of yesterday's media rampage through the shooters' apartment.

It's certainly a call to action but it says absolutely nothing new. All it says is "The time for talking is over, we need to do something," without acknowledging that "talking about it" is a necessary and unskippable part of "doing something." Even if every single person in the country agreed that the second amendment needs to go, it's still a constitutional amendment and in order to modify it we need to talk about it. There's no way around it. They even concede that this conversation needs to be held but then gloss right over it without any attempt to actually start the conversation by swerving to other countries with strict gun laws and no constitutional challenges. What's the point of bringing them up? They should know it's not a valid comparison.

Other than a vague "some people will need to give up their guns" (which is a safe position to hold since it's not like Jim-Bob and his AR-15 collection in Cornhole, Nebraska reads the New York Times. This whole thing is really mostly preaching to the choir.) they offer no specifics at all. Only "we need to do something," without ever saying what they think that something is. If it really is possible to precisely define which guns they feel should be outlawed, why don't they do it? Why didn't they use this space to say: "We, the people of the New York Times editorial board, think the specific changes x, y and z need to be made."? That wouldn't have been a call to action, it'd have been actual action.
 

T Robinson

Born long ago, in a different era
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
1,282
Reaction score
212
Location
Southern USA
Pretty weak. If they had to compromise their journalistic integrity do this they should have at least made it worthwhile. I suppose it's only fitting that they put it right next to the pictures of yesterday's media rampage through the shooters' apartment.

It's certainly a call to action but it says absolutely nothing new. All it says is "The time for talking is over, we need to do something," without acknowledging that "talking about it" is a necessary and unskippable part of "doing something." Even if every single person in the country agreed that the second amendment needs to go, it's still a constitutional amendment and in order to modify it we need to talk about it. There's no way around it. They even concede that this conversation needs to be held but then gloss right over it without any attempt to actually start the conversation by swerving to other countries with strict gun laws and no constitutional challenges. What's the point of bringing them up? They should know it's not a valid comparison.

Other than a vague "some people will need to give up their guns" (which is a safe position to hold since it's not like Jim-Bob and his AR-15 collection in Cornhole, Nebraska reads the New York Times. This whole thing is really mostly preaching to the choir.) they offer no specifics at all. Only "we need to do something," without ever saying what they think that something is. If it really is possible to precisely define which guns they feel should be outlawed, why don't they do it? Why didn't they use this space to say: "We, the people of the New York Times editorial board, think the specific changes x, y and z need to be made."? That wouldn't have been a call to action, it'd have been actual action.

Totally agree. It is very easy to talk about a problem, much harder to provide realistic solutions, with intermediate steps toward a goal.

Rhetoric is cheap.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Totally agree. It is very easy to talk about a problem, much harder to provide realistic solutions, with intermediate steps toward a goal.

Rhetoric is cheap.
The problem is, that after every incident we do indeed talk about it. At length. And I think the point is that talking about it over and over is pointless unless some action is taken.

There have already been numerous specific suggestions made to help deal with the problem. Each time any specific suggestion is made, we talk about it, bringing up perceived problems and reasons why it won't work. The end result is that nothing is ever done. Nothing.

The Senate just voted down a specific proposal that would not allow those on the terrorist watchlist to purchase weapons. Many people talked about it and found problems with the concept so was defeated.

Likewise, yet another bill to require background checks for online purchases and gun shows was defeated.

Apparently there is no solution to this insane murder rate from gun violence that this nation suffers under. Any change in our gun laws, no matter how minor, is met with objections and explanations how it will not do any good anyway. One thing is for sure, if nothing is done then nothing will change. And indeed, that's exactly what I predict the outcome will be this time, and the next time, and the time after.
 

Kylabelle

unaccounted for
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
26,200
Reaction score
4,015
William and Alessandra, thank you for cutting through to the significance here. Yes it's a call to action and yes action has numerous pitfalls.

Now to read the rest of the thread. (I was outside pulling and digging out some gnarly nasty weeds for a couple hours, a great thing to do if you're pissed off. Take that, you scurvy wiregrass you! BWahahahaha!)
 

asroc

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
293
The problem is, that after every incident we do indeed talk about it. At length. And I think the point is that talking about it over and over is pointless unless some action is taken.

There have already been numerous specific suggestions made to help deal with the problem. Each time any specific suggestion is made, we talk about it, bringing up perceived problems and reasons why it won't work. The end result is that nothing is ever done. Nothing.

The Senate just voted down a specific proposal that would not allow those on the terrorist watchlist to purchase weapons. Many people talked about it and found problems with the concept so was defeated.

Likewise, yet another bill to require background checks for online purchases and gun shows was defeated.

Apparently there is no solution to this insane murder rate from gun violence that this nation suffers under. Any change in our gun laws, no matter how minor, is met with objections and explanations how it will not do any good anyway. One thing is for sure, if nothing is done then nothing will change. And indeed, that's exactly what I predict the outcome will be this time, and the next time, and the time after.

But we don't talk about it. We talk at each other without ever listening what the other side has to say, too busy demonizing each other and pretending the other side is full of extremists. On the one side you have people believing the gub'mint will take their guns away, which is unacceptable and unconstitutional, so you can pry their guns from their cold dead hands. On the other side you have people believing that gun owners all believe the gub'mint will take their guns away, so they'd never be willing to even listen to any sort of compromise, would never give up even one inch of ground and therefore there's no need to bother talking to them, we just need to legislate over their heads.

Those two extremes do exist, but there is a huge middle ground that goes completely untapped. Consensus already exists. Things like background checks, waiting periods, restrictions of gun ownership for mentally ill people are supported on both sides of the aisle, no matter what the NRA says. But because the NRA is rich and loud they just drown it out and create the impression that there is no middle ground. We could probably get so much done very quickly if we just realized how much we already agree.

We never talked about the watchlist proposal. Congress may have, but was there any sort of national debate over it? Was there any attempt to fix the problems with the concept without sinking the entire bill? If so, why not? Was it because there was no broad public support for it or was it because a bunch of senators were lobbied by the wrong people?

Laws are made by five hundred thirtyeight people and they don't necessarily accurately represent the 300 million other ones. Congress may not be ready to get to work, but I think most of the country absolutely is.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Maybe weapons makers could stop making ammunition for older guns.
How would that work? It's not like music, where formats change every decade or so. The vast majority of guns use a handful of calibers that have been around for decades, and those handful of calibers represent the vast majority of ammunition made today, as well as the vast majority of newly-manufactured guns. They don't change calibers every model year or anything like that.

On top of that, odd caliber ammunition is generally sparsely manufactured and hella expensive, hardly the first choice for somebody planning to shoot up a few thousand rounds in a tirade.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
As long as it's identified as an editorial/opinion piece (and it is), it doesn't matter where the NYT decides to print it. They're not misleading anyone about what it is.