Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts

Friday, August 12, 2016

A Telling Profile of Media Professional

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

The entertainment establishment-writers, producers and stars of the movies, TV programs and music we consume-are overwhelmingly liberal in their political outlook. Not so widely known is that voting patterns of American newspaper reporters and editors show a similar overwhelming lean to the left. Consider these findings:
  • In the 1992 election, 89 percent of journalists who make up the Washington, D.C., press corps and report on national political news voted for the liberal candidate, Democrat Bill Clinton. Only 7 percent voted for the conservative candidate, Republican George H.W. Bush.
  • Of these journalists, 61 percent saw themselves as “liberal” or “liberal to moderate,” while only 9 percent regarded themselves as “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”
  • A poll of 167 newspaper editors found that, in the 1992 and 1996 elections, 58 and 57 percent, respectively, voted for Democratic candidate Bill Clinton (compared to 43 and 49 percent of all other voters).
  • A 1996 survey of more than 1,000 reporters at 61 newspapers found that, of those with more than 50,000 circulation (primarily large-city papers), 65 percent of the staff members were liberal or leaned to the left.
  • A 2001 poll of more than 300 media professionals found that those who identified themselves as liberal outnumbered conservatives four to one.
  • A 1980 study of 240 New York and Washington journalists found that 86 percent never or seldom attended religious services, and half had no religious affiliation at all.
  • Some 90 percent of these journalists were pro-abortion.
  • About 75 percent did not regard homosexuality as wrong, and 54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong. Only 15 percent of these journalists “strongly agreed” that adultery, abortion and homosexual practices were immoral.
(Sources: William Proctor, The Gospel According to The New York Times , 2000, pp. 44-46; Media Research Center.) GN

You might also be interested in...

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Should You Believe All the News You Hear?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

The credo of professional journalists is to report facts and events objectively. Yet several recent books document journalists slanting their reporting to favor their biases and further their prejudices, especially left-leaning agendas.
Longtime CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg realized how deep media bias can run as he reviewed a February 1996 story presented by fellow CBS reporter Eric Engberg. In his best-selling book Bias, Mr. Goldberg expressed his shock at the way Mr. Engberg's report poked fun at presidential candidate and Forbes -magazine publisher Steve Forbes' proposal for a flat tax rate.
“Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir good for everything that ails us,”Mr. Engberg began. He then proceeded to interview three supposed tax experts, all of whom opposed Mr. Forbes' proposal to overhaul the massive U.S. tax code. He then referred to the flat-tax idea as “wacky” and a “giant, untested idea” that should be “test[ed] out someplace-like Albania” (2002, pp. 16-18).
As Mr. Goldberg points out, Mr. Engberg could easily have found respected economists who supported Mr. Forbes'flat tax- especially since two Nobel-prize-winning economists and various conservative university economics professors were on record as supporting the idea.
Mr. Goldberg concludes: “From top to bottom the Engberg piece was breathtaking in its lack of fairness. So how could CBS put it on the air? Well, news fans, here's one of those dirty little secrets journalists are never supposed to reveal to the regular folks out there in the audience: a reporter can find an expert to say anything the reporter wants - anything! Just keep calling until one of the experts says what you need him to say and tell him you'll be right down with your camera crew to interview him.
“If you find an expert who says, 'You know, I think that flat tax just might work and here's why …' you thank him, hang up, and find another expert. It's how journalists sneak their own personal views into stories in the guise of objective news reporting. Because the reporter can always say, 'Hey, I didn't say the flat tax stinks- the guy from that Washington think tank did!'” (ibid., p. 20).
Mr. Goldberg also notes that too many reporters, editors and columnists live in their own insular world, isolated from other views and sources of information. He cites the example of New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, who expressed astonishment when Richard Nixon beat liberal candidate George McGovern in the 1972 U.S. presidential election. “How can that be?” she exclaimed. “Nobody I know voted for Nixon.”Yet Mr. Nixon had carried 49 of the 50 states in a landslide election victory.

Slanted news reporting

William McGowan, former reporter for Newsweek and the BBC and a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal explains in his recent book Coloring the News that the news media's crusade for a favorite liberal cause-diversity- has corrupted American journalism by promoting homosexual rights, feminism, affirmative action, race and immigration over objective debate and honesty.
He recounts that in December 1992 he attended the Diversity Summit Meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper Association of America. From that point forward, he notes, media coverage underwent a major and lasting change.
“The cause of diversity had become a crusade across the length and breadth of the American media, and would be a defining and dominating force in journalism in the decade to come. Almost every day after that 1992 meeting, one could hear echoes from it in newspaper stories and nightly network broadcasts. Diversity was the new religion, and anybody who wanted to be anybody in the news industry had to rally behind it” (2001, pp. 9-10).

From media darling to pariah

Another revealing book documenting the bias of many in the media was written by Tammy Bruce, longtime advocate of liberal causes. Ms. Bruce, a Los Angeles political figure and talk-show host, was head of the Los Angeles chapter and a national board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) as well as an avowed lesbian and abortion-rights activist. However, after defending conservative author and talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and charging NOW with hypocrisy, she found herself a pariah among reporters who had formerly sought her out for interviews.
Based on such experiences, she wrote The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. In it she explains that “what began so many years ago as a noble cause-ending the scourge of bigotry-has devolved into something far different. It's not bigots that the new Thought Police are after. It's people … who dare to speak their mind and contradict the 'progressive' point of view …
“There is enormous irony in the fact that it is those on the Left-the supposed protectors of all things culturally important-who are imposing severe sanctions on anyone who espouses an idea or expresses an opinion that might be deemed 'offensive' to some favored group” (2001, p. 4).
The result is that “the effects of this new intolerance are felt in the media and in the arts, on college campuses, even in offices and factories. The message is clear: Don't speak up. Or else-you'll be fired [or] sued … Labels such as 'racist,' 'sexist,'and 'homophobe'are routinely used to demonize anyone who utters a word that doesn't support the Left's agenda. Television producers allow their scripts to be edited by groups that purport to represent aggrieved minorities. On college campuses, student newspapers that don't toe the party line are collected and destroyed, and speakers with un-PC views are shouted down” (ibid., pp. 2-3).
Not surprisingly, all three books have been generally ignored in the mainstream media, even though Bias has become a best-seller in the United States.

Bias affects reporting

How do such media biases affect everyday reporting? One notable example involved coverage of the campaigns leading up to a recent national election. The major liberal candidate was consistently portrayed by the mainstream media as a deep thinker and intellectual heavyweight. The leading conservative candidate, on the other hand, was typically portrayed as something of an amiable dunce, a man generally incapable of speaking clearly and presenting ideas coherently.
Seldom compared by the media were details of the academic backgrounds of the two candidates. Both had graduated from Ivy League schools, one from Harvard, the other from Yale. However, from there the “smart” one went to Vanderbilt Divinity School, where, according to a biography and column in The Boston Globe “he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters” before dropping out. He then enrolled for a brief stint at Vanderbilt Law School before again dropping out and entering a lifetime of politics.
The other candidate, depicted as an intellectual featherweight, went on to earn an M.B.A. from Harvard, no insignificant accomplishment. He flew fighter jets in the National Guard. In spite of an impressive showing since assuming office and the most-sustained high approval ratings of any person occupying that office in history, reporters and columnists still occasionally snipe at President George W. Bush for his supposed lack of intelligence.

Mass-media alienation

Most media firms are, in fact, businesses that promote strong liberal biases. Such leanings reflect a warped worldview and lead them to assume their views are normal while the perspectives of those who disagree with them are abnormal. Significantly, several media corporations have been fast losing audiences, some say because of their profound bias.
Many Americans appear to be increasingly aware of the distorted diet the majority of media outlets feeds them in the name of news reporting. Columnist Jack Kelly's perception of modern mainstream media is telling:
“For people who are convinced we're awfully smart, we journalists can be pretty stupid. We've been driving away customers. In 1980, 75 percent of Americans routinely watched evening newscasts on ABC, NBC, or CBS. Last year only 43 percent did. In 1980, 67 percent of adults customarily read a daily newspaper. In 1999, only 57 percent did.
“Television news has lost 43 percent of its audience, newspapers 15 percent of ours. In other businesses, such losses would trigger massive changes. Heads would roll. If word spread McDonald's was using rat feces as filler in hamburgers, McDonald's market share would drop. Viewers and readers are deserting us in droves because they think our product is shallow and biased” (“Media Is Its Own Worst Enemy,” Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2002).
But not all journalists remain loyal to liberal biases. Bernard Goldberg, cited above, is perhaps the most popular television journalist who has stood against media bias. Radio-talk-show hosts with countering views, such as Rush Limbaugh, have become nationally popular by riding a wave of dissent against the mainstream media's liberal biases, as have conservative-leaning commentators such as the Fox network's Bill O'Reilly. Fox has been built on mainstream media's abandonment of any vestige of unbiased objectivity. Fox's motto itself is revealing: “We report; you decide.”
Today a sentiment grows that the very media outlets that rose to greatness during World War II through most of the last half of the 20th century have begun to engineer their own demise by failing to fulfill their promise of objectivity in reporting.
There also exists a growing belief that the owners of the vast majority of network news outlets are more interested in promoting entertainment personalities and products, along with issues and views popular in related fields, than in promoting and providing unbiased reporting. As a result,Western society often is informed only of news and issues that harmonize with the opinions of those who control the media. This approach leaves in its wake a distorted view of reality as its most disturbing consequence. GN

You might also be interested in...

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Youth Violence Who's to Blame?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

In the 1960s Bill Roberts forever abandoned youthful innocence for the killing fields of Vietnam. Not long ago something happened to Bill that brought back the terror he felt years ago in guerrilla warfare.
His recent brush with death was not in a war in Southeast Asia. It happened in Portland, Oregon, a prosperous city of a million and a half people. The enemy wasn't Vietnamese guerrillas but gun-toting gang members in a school yard.
Mr. Roberts serves as principal of a school attended by my children. He is still a soldier, but his fight is with the explosion of youth violence that began 20 years ago in America.
With the American prison population up to 1,800,000 from 750,000 in only 10 years, violence among young people affects every stratum of American life.
Easy solutions are hard to come by because the problem with youth violence is not a trend fueled primarily by desperation and poverty. It is driven by powerful forces and influences that lead some children to treat other human beings as if they are of no more value than the electronic video-game figures they mindlessly kill off by the hour for amusement.
With the lines between fantasy and reality confused and blurred, some American youths have received the unmistakable message that it is entertaining to kill. The two teenaged gunmen who killed and maimed 35 students and teachers at Colorado's Columbine High School in May laughed as they roamed the classrooms and hallways and gunned down their victims.
Does our culture teach children that killing people is not a big deal? Violent movies, video and computer games, and many television shows certainly send that message.
Strangely, many violent teenagers are possessed of a sense of invincibility. Not only do they evince no fear of God, they have little fear or understanding that they could be killed as easily as the fictional characters on a video-game screen.

Explosive Violence

After a 15-year-old boy confessed to the May 1998 shooting of 22 students and his parents in Springfield, Oregon, commentators pointed out that explosive violence had crept from the poor, inner-city communities of the 1980s and early '90s onto the manicured lawns of suburbia.
Not only is homicide one of the greatest risks to our youngsters, says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, it has progressively permeated the national landscape. The epidemic of gun violence began to peak among youth in the late 1980s, ravaging a predominately poor minority generation of inner-city residents, according to James Garbarino, director of the Family Life Development Center at Cornell University.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency president Barry Krisberg notes a difference in today's profile of youth violence. Recent mass-murder attempts and episodes “had nothing to do with drugs or guns,” he said. “Some were from affluent communities and intact families.”
In the last six years 11 of 12 mass shootings with multiple victims took place in cities with populations under 80,000. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report nine of these were municipalities with a smaller population than 52,000.
Initial studies indicate a shift in violent youth behavior out of the low socioeconomic stereotype. Harvard School of Public Health professor Deborah Prothrow-Stith characterizes the movement of youth violence from poor urban communities to the rest of the population and regions as an effect similar to any other epidemic. “It's the second wave,” she said. “First [it strikes] the most vulnerable community, and then it spreads.”
Copy acts have also proliferated. In one study 25 percent of young violent felons said they got the specific idea for their violent activity directly from television. “I can do that” is the remark attributed to the 15-year-old Oregon shooter in a conversation two months earlier to his school-bus driver when he heard about the school massacre by two youths in Paducah, Kentucky.
Murders committed by teens ages 14 to 17 tripled between 1976 and 1993, then dropped somewhat, according to University of Oregon sociology department chairman Robert O'Brien. However, observers point out that upward trends in youth violence may be masked somewhat by imprisonment, aggressive policing and a dynamic national economy.

A Childhood Jungle

Youth violence is, at its core, an outgrowth of an American crisis of values. Successful child-raising requires values flowing from a firm commitment to children—a commitment that requires time, attention and resources. In their absence, children grow up in a veritable jungle.
It doesn't have to be so.
Consistent, loving guidance of children works. Demonstrating concern works. These parental commitments help stop violence by preventing it. They require a child-centered approach that touches the spirit of the child rather than a manipulation of material circumstances masquerading as attention.
A central message of Jesus Christ regarding children is that they are to be loved because “of such is the Kingdom of God.” He showed that true love works. The explosion of youth violence is a clear warning that time is running out to begin practicing Christ's approach before it's too late.
Most youthful violence emanates from environments in which brutal adult behavior is modeled and acted out in what National Council on Crime and Delinquency president Krisberg calls a “nihilistic culture that does not promote community and social values.”
Not only are right values ignored, but wrong values are often celebrated. “Go to the movies and listen to the music,” says Mr. Krisberg. “It's violent, it has misogynist content. There's gross materialism and no ennobling values celebrated.”

A New Battleground

The war of youth violence is waged in many communities. On Mr. Roberts' Portland school ground, a battle almost erupted because a 12-year-old student had grabbed a basketball away from a gang member.
A few days later school was just letting out when the gang members arrived with revolvers under their coats and dozens of umbrellas tipped with blades. They were ready for the boy.
What surprised Mr. Roberts and led him to instinctively sense he might witness a murder was the bizarre willingness of the 12-year-old with no violent history to take on the gang single-handedly.
As the boy raced out the front door toward the gang, Mr. Roberts grabbed him, handing him over to two assistants who restrained him in Mr. Roberts' office while Mr. Roberts confronted the gang.
In schools across the nation, principals experience such potentially deadly conflicts. Although this situation passed without harm, Mr. Roberts says he feels sure he will see similar problems again. He fears that America, with its random, bloody explosions of violence, is in some ways repeating the frightening guerrilla warfare of Vietnam.
The tentacles of youth violence have traveled across the Atlantic and the Pacific into most other parts of the Western World. Consider the United Kingdom. In some British schools youth violence and disrespect for authority are out of control. An East Anglian instructor wrote an article, “How We Teachers Have Lost Control of the Classroom” ( Sunday Telegraph ) in which he said only one goal matters: “reducing violence in schools.”

Need for Spiritually Motivated Love

Former U.S. Army general Colin Powell, whose leadership helped the American military and its allies emerge victorious in 1991's Operation Desert Storm, says the problem of troubled youth is the greatest threat to the future of the United States.
Youth violence has its roots in a parental culture that has spiritually abandoned them. More money, expensive schools and government programs run by well-meaning bureaucrats cannot substitute for parental love. Western nations so often look to institutional programs for salvation from social crises, but this is one money can't buy.
The 15 million children living in poverty are not alone in a landscape of emotional, interpersonal and spiritual impoverishment. Many children in prosperous nations grow up without enriching values conveyed by the intimacy of sacrificial parental love.
Many of them have no concept of the sanctity of life, even their own. “This is the way we want to go out,” read the suicide note from Columbine High School gunmen Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who between them killed 13 people in a rampage of bullets and homemade bombs before they turned their guns on themselves.
With materialism substituted for love, many children have no comprehension of an overriding purpose for life, no sense that life is anything more than a quest for instant gratification. They have scarce knowledge of a Higher Power with endless love who reveals a meaningful purpose and destiny for every man, woman and child.
The discouraging social forces affect almost all of society. Even people who profess to be Christian aren't immune, with divorce and abuse rampant. Too many political and religious leaders have abandoned belief in absolute standards such as those that flow from the immutable law of God. God's standards condemn both lack of and abuse of parental authority as well as the sexual promiscuity that almost always leads to single-parenthood.
As a result, children absorb a chaos of relativistic values that mingle hedonism with self-destructive and aggressive behavior.

Serious Consequences

The Creator of mankind has the authority to define right and wrong. And He warns that He will reject a nation whose mothers and fathers reject the spiritual knowledge revealed in the law of God.
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” declares the Creator God. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you . . . Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children” (Hosea 4:6, emphasis added).
Youth violence is not a mystery. It is a mistake, a sin and a tragedy for all concerned. But the good news is that the spiritual principles that have always worked still work. Families, communities and nations don't have to be destroyed if they will seek the spiritual knowledge that shows them how to express godly love.
Societies and cultures can change. In the case of America's crisis of youth violence, the problem begins in the home. It is there that parents must learn about and then begin to foster a family culture based on biblical values. Love, if it is genuine, always works. GN

You might also be interested in...