FOX "News" Sunday is the crown jewel of that "news" in the network's name, being the ultimate in newsiness, rather than opinion. After you finish laughing over that whopper, ponder this on: while it was great (and unusual) that host Chris Wallace used a semi-tough line of questioning on NRA head Wayne LaPierre. . .why was LaPierre on in the first place? He's not an elected official, he's not a policy maker, he's not a retired general or a scion of industry. He's a lobbyist. A lobbyist not for the 2nd amendment, or hobbyist (hobbyist lobbyist?) marksmen, or hunters or paranoid "preppers." He's a lobbyist for gun manufacturers. He's the "big guns" version of "big tobacco." And he's batshit crazy to boot! [Story continues below]
So, I don't really see why he's going around on the Sunday shows, or being trotted in front of Congressional panels. I mean, sure, if the intent is to grill him that's one thing. But he's being used as the point to the Diane Feinstein counterpoint. And that's a false equivalence.
While we're at it, this false equivalence isn't just used in the gun argument, it's all over broadcast and cable news, and it's damned annoying. The one that grinds me the worst is whenever the topic of gay rights is discussed, they drag out somebody from a certified hate group for "balance." Peter Sprigg, Tony Perkins, somebody from a group with "family" in its name, or some ridiculous "ex-gay" closet case (not that any of those listed are mutually exclusive) is treated as though their "side" of the argument is equally valid. It's like booking the KKK Grand Wizard for "balance" when the subject is race relations. And yet, they keep doing it. Fortunately, Wallace's competition is more consistently tough on them. That doesn't mitigate the fact that they book them in the first place.
So, I don't really see why he's going around on the Sunday shows, or being trotted in front of Congressional panels. I mean, sure, if the intent is to grill him that's one thing. But he's being used as the point to the Diane Feinstein counterpoint. And that's a false equivalence.
While we're at it, this false equivalence isn't just used in the gun argument, it's all over broadcast and cable news, and it's damned annoying. The one that grinds me the worst is whenever the topic of gay rights is discussed, they drag out somebody from a certified hate group for "balance." Peter Sprigg, Tony Perkins, somebody from a group with "family" in its name, or some ridiculous "ex-gay" closet case (not that any of those listed are mutually exclusive) is treated as though their "side" of the argument is equally valid. It's like booking the KKK Grand Wizard for "balance" when the subject is race relations. And yet, they keep doing it. Fortunately, Wallace's competition is more consistently tough on them. That doesn't mitigate the fact that they book them in the first place.
