Anti-Gun Bias on HBO's "The Newsroom"

[TPaine7]

I just finished watching "The Newsroom" on HBO (Season 1, Episode 4, I'll Try to Fix You).

McAvoy, the anchor, has a one-sided but at least mostly true on-air rant where he "proves" that Sarah Palin, the NRA and others have no basis for thinking Obama is anti-gun and wants to ban guns. After all, by carefully ignoring Obama's published and well known anti-gun positions before he became president, you can show that he is a gun rights champion. He is, according to McAvoy's analysis, "the best friend the NRA has ever had."

Later that night, McAvoy is on a date with a woman.

Beginning at about 28:00 minutes in (on HBO GO) is a scene that presents an embarrassing propaganda whopper, the kind of lie that is swallowed by decent folks all the time. After all, the show is smart, funny, intelligent and apparently well researched--and it is obviously intended as serious political commentary. Here's how it happened:

McAvoy's date, Carrie, walking away from him toward the bedroom to change (she's apparently gotten wet in the rain): "Sloan said you were fun, hey do you like to get high?"

McAvoy: "I used to, but I can't buy pot anymore without it showing up in a newspaper."

Carrie: "There's a joint in the side pocket of my purse; get it out."

McAvoy: "Alright."

McAvoy, Upon finding gun, obviously disturbed: "Carrie, can we talk about the gun that's in your purse?"

Carrie, walking back into room wearing robe: "I'm a southern liberal, dude. It's northern liberals who are afraid of sex and guns."

McAvoy: "Well, both at the same time, and I'm a Republican from Nebraska. But, you mind if I..." He unloads her gun, taking out the magazine, dropping a bullet on the floor and handing the unloaded gun to her.

Carrie (smiling and taking his presumptuous self-righteousness in stride--she never said he could do anything with her gun): "You're disarming--get it?"

McAvoy: "Here's the thing..."

Carrie: "Yeah, yeah, I saw the show tonight. I'm a liberal's liberal, I work for Hillary, you are dead wrong on guns."

McAvoy: "I didn't take a position on guns, I took a position on lying, I came out against it." (Naturally, he didn't mention his own lie by omission, by carefully ignoring many published Obama statements against guns and focusing exclusively on things like the bill Obama signed that incidentally helped gun rights, he made the idea that Obama opposes gun rights appear weaker than it actually is. He also made Palin and Wayne LaPierre seem sillier than they actually are--which is impressive, but unnecessary.)

Carrie: "Well, if I'm walking the streets of Manhattan at night and a guy your size wants to rape me, then this is going to happen." (She points gun at him.)

McAvoy: "Actually, statistics show that this is going to happen:" Then, in a move that would make a ninja proud--and I mean a B movie ninja who can levitate, disappear and walk through walls--he takes the gun from her by slapping the butt of the gun, catching it it when it pops out of her hand, and deftly turning it on her. (I wonder how many takes it took to record that move, even with a cooperative woman.)

Carrie: "Is it wrong that I'm turned on by that?"

McAvoy: "Yes."

I have no doubt that some otherwise intelligent people now believe that statistically --STATISTICALLY!--guns are taken from armed people--or maybe it's just armed women--easily, in less than a second. For those keeping score at home, that would imply that this happens in THE MAJORITY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USES.

Yes, it's fiction. But it's serious, smart, sophisticated, intellectual fiction--fiction that obviously wants to be take seriously when it cites "facts."

[Warren Stupidity]

1. So Obama is a gun snatcher? Seriously?

[TPaine7]

7. Of course. That's exactly what I said. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I'm glad you agree.

After all, by carefully ignoring Obama's published and well known anti-gun positions before he became president, you can show that he is a gun rights champion.

You are in the "crypto gun grabber obama" camp.

[2ndAmForComputers]

31. May I ask you a question?

Who do you want to win the November Presidential election, and why?

[TPaine7]

64. Obama.

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Because I think that while he is definitely less than perfect--and even less than what he promised to be--he is better than Romney on just about everything--even, arguably, on guns.

For starters, Obama is better on,

1) Separation of Church and State
2) Civil rights
3) Not making America a world bully
4) Caring for the poor
5) Science over "faith" based BS (I don't think Romney is a true believer in anti-science, just that he's beholden to the "Christian" Right)
6) Respect for constitutional rights in general
7) Lack of belief in extreme individualism--you know, folks who appear to believe that they birthed and raised themselves and built the schools in which they taught themselves and the roads on which they traveled to school
8) Lack of belief that billionaires and millionaires are more deserving of tax breaks than ordinary folks
9) The idea that there should be a safety net.

Now I have a question for you.

Why do you think you can judge a person so quickly based on one OP?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. In practice, no.

Some elements of that were listed on Change.org during the election though. They have since been pulled, and Obama has been a good president on this issue, so it's a non-issue for me in this election as well.

In fact, if you seek to prevent an assault weapons ban, by all means, vote for Obama, not Romney.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Since the 2008 election Obama has been quiet about guns.

Prior to then he was extremely anti-gun. Romney has flip-flopped all over the place on guns.

[geckosfeet]

2. Kind of like when people actually believe when rUsh, oLier and hateme spew garbage on their shows.

People believe all kinds of stone stupid stuff, don't they?

on edit: I always get a kick out people representing movies as reality. It informs my opinion when I see the real world and television fiction so easily and naturally conflated.

[DanTex]

3. Actually, statistics do show that a gun increases rather than decreases the risk...

...of getting shot. So the general idea: that for most people, a gun actually makes you less safe rather than more safe, is accurate. Yes, I know that some idiot on a gun blog somewhere has rambled on for pages about how the peer reviewed research is "flawed" and "biased" and blah blah blah, but believing in the scientific publications rather than the gun blogs hardly amounts to "anti-gun bias".

[TPaine7]

6. So it's a lie that supports the One True Faith,

and therefore while you can't condemn it outright--its heart is in the right place--you find it relevant to discuss the eeeeeevil gun bloggers?

I see.

[DanTex]

16. Uh, no, my point is that it's not a lie. Statistically, a gun puts you at greater risk.

[4th law of robotics]

18. Presumably then there would be a direct correlation between

gun ownership rates and violent crime rates.

Right?

[Starboard Tack]

21. Has nothing to do with gun ownership.

It has to do with carrying. Period.

[4th law of robotics]

22. Ok . . so there is a direct correlation between CHLs and violence

right?

[Starboard Tack]

24. Please don't put words in my mouth. The following are my words.

There is a direct correlation between carrying loaded weapons in public and violence.
There is a direct correlation between carrying loaded weapons in public and homicide.
There is a direct correlation between carrying loaded weapons in public and stupidity.
There is a direct correlation between carrying loaded weapons in public and irrational fear.
There is a direct correlation between carrying loaded weapons in public and sociopathy.
There is a direct correlation between carrying loaded weapons in public and delusions of immortality.

[4th law of robotics]

25. So prove it.

[Kaleva]

20. Statistically, my risk is the same as someone who doesn't own a gun.

My risk would be higher if I owned a gun (which I do) and I lived in a high crime area, was involved in criminal actively, had substance abuse problems, had mental issues and/or was involved in a sometimes violent relationship with another person.

[TPaine7]

27. Speaking of lies...

Yes, it is a lie. The "statistical fact" propagated by the star of the show is a lie. I've higlighted it for you, since you apparently have trouble finding the point.

Carrie: "Well, if I'm walking the streets of Manhattan at night and a guy your size wants to rape me, then this is going to happen." (She points gun at him.)

McAvoy: "[font color="red"]Actually, statistics show that this is going to happen:[/font]" Then, in a move that would make a ninja proud--and I mean a B movie ninja who can levitate, disappear and walk through walls--he takes the gun from her by slapping the butt of the gun, catching it it when it pops out of her hand, and deftly turning it on her. (I wonder how many takes it took to record that move, even with a cooperative woman.)

It is a lie that statistics show that Carrie would have her gun deftly taken from her in a fraction of a second. And that is the subject. That is what the actor said. That was the point made in the conversation. That is the propaganda being pushed by HBO. That is the subject of the OP.

Your attempt to change the subject...

Statistically, a gun puts you at greater risk.

is noted and dismissed.

There are lies and then there are lies. There are lies told by actors and writers—possibly the unwitting dupes of the Brady Campaign and the like, who too easily believe it when their biases are confirmed. And then there are lies told by people who know full well what they are doing as they distort, evade and mislead.

Obviously, the willing bald-faced liars are the worst.

[DanTex]

53. The only person lying here is you.

It is a lie that statistics show that Carrie would have her gun deftly taken from her in a fraction of a second. And that is the subject. That is what the actor said. That was the point made in the conversation. That is the propaganda being pushed by HBO. That is the subject of the OP.

Wrong. The character did not say "statistics show that Carrie would have her gun deftly taken from her in a fraction of a second". The character said statistics show "this" is going to happen. You are interpreting "this" to mean having her gun being taken away. But "this" can also be interpreted more generally, to mean "your gun making the situation worse rather than better".

What you seem to be missing is that this wasn't a talk at a scientific conference, it was a line spoken by a semi-drunk character in an HBO drama series. Of course it falls short of the standards of clarity and precision that you'd find in a scientific publication. But if the character had instead said "studies have found that the statistical effect of gun ownership and/or possession is to increase rather than decrease the risks associated with crime victimization", that would have been really horrible writing.

[TPaine7]

58. "But 'this' can also be interpreted more generally..."

Of course it can. It can be interpreted to mean whatever the listener desires. And you would be the one to do it.

I'm sure you're fooling someone.

[DanTex]

59. In other words, you have no point, and you've backed away from the lies in your last post.

[TPaine7]

60. I feel bad for you.

The only rational way to interpret the scene is the way I did. You are lying to protect liars. I've backed away from nothing; I thought your lie was fully exposed and required no more layers of BS to be peeled back. Whoever is fooled by your BS now deserves to be fooled. So I didn't beat the dead horse.

Even you qualified your first response:

Actually, statistics do show that a gun increases rather than decreases the risk...

View profile
...of getting shot. So [font color="red"]the general idea[/font]: that for most people, a gun actually makes you less safe rather than more safe, [font color="red"]is accurate.[/font]

You tried to change the subject, but you at least were apparently going to be honest enough to acknowledge that you were pivoting. You knew very well that while "the general idea" was believed by you to be accurate, the specific point was BS. I gave you the benefit of that apparent honesty in my reply. Now you've found a sophistry that you think can cover your pathetic maneuver. And you are giving the impression that you're actually fooled by your own BS. That's sad.

I feel bad for you, but say what you need to support your lies, evasions and obfuscation.

I suspect that you are only fooling one person.

Ok, I'm bored now. Feel free to lie, to obfuscate, to evade, to cite a Rhodes scholar and to declare victory. Unless you shock me with a cogent point, I'll be ignoring it.

You're dismissed.

[DanTex]

65. LOL. Trying to ignore your lie isn't going to work.

In case you forgot, here is you lying:

It is a lie that statistics show that Carrie would have her gun deftly taken from her in a fraction of a second. And that is the subject. That is what the actor said. That was the point made in the conversation. That is the propaganda being pushed by HBO. That is the subject of the OP

And, speaking of fooling people, have you ever found a single person, capable of reason, who is not fully immersed in the NRA cult, who buys into any of your idiocies? As someone else pointed out, you don't even bother to post in GD very often, because without the concentration of right-wing trolls that you find here in the gungeon, you wouldn't have the same chorus of ignoramuses to cheer you on. When you find anyone with a remotely Democratic or progressive outlook on politics who thinks that there is "anti-gun bias" in "The Newsroom", please let me know.

Until then, let's all take a moment to bask in the utter hilariousness of the fact that you hold lines delivered half-drunk by a fictional character to a higher standard than you do right-wing propagandists like your buddy John Lott, whose work, unlike "The Newsroom", actually claims to be scientific research, and actually is full of lies.

[gejohnston]

66. If you look up the definition of

internet troll, they are all on your side of the gun issue.

[hack89]

8. So why are fewer people getting shot?

inquiring minds want to know.

[Higgs boson]

63. And a car increases the risk of having a vehicle wreck.

Who would have ever imagined it?

[Hoyt]

4. Good show. Hope they keep exploring this gun BS that plagues our society.

[rrneck]

5. If you want to have liberals on TV

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)

you have to trot out all the liberal political tropes. It's all about telling people what they want to hear.

Is it wrong that liberals are turned on by that?

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I see you edited out the racist crap you originally posted.

Nice. Keep up appearances. Good job.

Dear Jury: please view the edit history.

[rrneck]

11. You see I edited out an auto complete typo.

Dear jury, read the entire subthread.

Edited to add: Watch who you call a bigot. I don't like that shit. I don't give a fuck if it is the gungeon.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. really?

"you have to trot out all the liberal political tropes. It's all about telling people what ghetto want to hear.

Is it wrong that liberals are turned on by that?"

A) you are a rightwing person here attacking liberals. That post with or without ghetto ought to be on some other board.
B) your auto complete substituted "ghetto" for exactly what? "they"? Sorry, I don't buy it.

[rrneck]

14. Look at your keyboard.

"g"and "t" are right next to each other. I don't give a flying fuck what you "buy". Why don't you produce some proof. Accusing somebody of racism is a serious insult. I don't like it. I want to see proof. Produce it or shut the fuck up.

Begin your apology now.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. not gonna happen.

[rrneck]

17. I believe you.

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

You're satisfied to slither in here and drop a shit pile of a post then crawl away when you get busted for doing exactly what you accused me of doing.

You still owe me an apology even though I forgive you.

Stay classy.

[Starboard Tack]

23. Sorry for jumping in, but I think rrneck is right on this.

I honestly believe it was an auto-correct typo. I know him well enough to say he is not a bigot and as someone who has been falsely accused in the past, I support him on this. It's best to disagree with him for the right reasons, not a typo.

[rrneck]

29. Thanks for jumping in.

I was raised in the south and experienced racism first hand. I see it again and again in the upscale liberal community I live in now. I have been on the losing end of racism and bigotry. If someone wants to accuse me of something they need to bring proof. If they want to call me a racist, they need to bring a lot of proof because I'll crawl down their throat and dance a jig.

We, as liberals and citizens, are compelled to employ intellectual honesty as well as loyalty to our ideals if we plan to do any good. Anything less just creates circular firing squads.

Imma go dig the sunshine in a minnit. Thanks again.

[Starboard Tack]

55. No problem. Respect.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. Thanks for being a standup person.

We need more of them.

[rrneck]

28. Here you go slick.

Do you buy it now?



Begin your apology.

Edit to add: Or do you prefer to stay your kind of classy?

[rrneck]

12. And by the way...

you owe me a fucking apology.

Begin now.

[TPaine7]

19. Ghetto has more than one meaning. If the context doesn't support a racial meaning, there is no

reason to impute that meaning to the speaker.

Here's the original post:

Original version with no edits.
5. If you want to have liberals on TV
you have to trot out all the liberal political tropes. It's all about telling people what ghetto want to hear.

Is it wrong that liberals are turned on by that?

I saw the original post and tried to parse it. It was obviously improper, grammatically speaking, but the closest approach to meaning I could get was a ghetto composed of liberal caricatures. Nothing hinted of racial intent, and I haven't seen it in his posting history.

So, to me at least, the typo/autocorrect explanation fits the evidence.

Fake accusations of racism are like fake accusations of rape. They give aid and comfort to the real thing.

[rrneck]

30. It's SOP.

Some lunatic shoots a bunch of people somewhere and the zampolits stampede to the gungeon to catch them some trolls. That sorry exchange is a perfect example of your OP.

People simply pluck ideologies off the shelf without giving them a second thought. They just like the sound of them and they look good in a mirror wearing them. Media conglomerates and ideology manufacturers make millions, and induction into the ranks of the 1%, producing that bullshit.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. unh-uh "what ghetto want to hear" is easy to parse.

But it was a typo. Or so I'm told. But suppose it was a typo? OK, then it is just rightwing "damn librul nonsense" bullshit and equally f'd up.

[rrneck]

37. Where's that apology?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=52318

Here's the news. You don't have a lock on what it means to be a liberal. You don't have a copyright on the term. You don't even have a clear understanding of the term. It would appear that all you know about it is what you are told by people who make a shit load of money telling you what to think.

In the unlikely event you start to think for yourself, you will be in a position to evaluate the opinions of others.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Anti-Obama horseshit - from someone with 272 Gungeon posts, and NONE elsewhere

in the last 90 days.

So I guess it's what you'd expect from someone with so limited a worldview that all they can talk about is guns.

DU - so fair, it has a special forum for people to attack the Democratic president. As long as they can do it with the word 'gun' somewhere.

[2ndAmForComputers]

33. You are 100% correct. I hope the Admins take notice.

[rrneck]

34. I think you might have replied in the wrong thread. nt

[2ndAmForComputers]

36. No, he didn't.

Oh, and by the way, I don't buy the "typo" excuse either.

[rrneck]

38. I probably missed it.

And by the way...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=52318

[2ndAmForComputers]

42. Sorry, still not buying.

(No, way, I lie. I'm not sorry at all.)

[rrneck]

44. Then produce some fucking proof

or get in the apology line behind Warren.

[2ndAmForComputers]

47. Nah, I think I'll watch kitten videos instead.

A more productive use of my time.

[rrneck]

50. That's what I thought.

Take a number in the apology line.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. The right thread, and I'm worried you can't see that

The whole purpose of the OP is to say that The Newsroom should be attacking Obama for being 'anti-gun'. Read their words again - I'll highlight the anti-Obama message that is the core, since you couldn't see it:

I just finished watching "The Newsroom" on HBO (Season 1, Episode 4, I'll Try to Fix You).

McAvoy, the anchor, has a one-sided but at least mostly true on-air rant where he "proves" that Sarah Palin, the NRA and others have no basis for thinking Obama is anti-gun and wants to ban guns. After all, by carefully ignoring Obama's published and well known anti-gun positions before he became president, you can show that he is a gun rights champion. He is, according to McAvoy's analysis, "the best friend the NRA has ever had."

[2ndAmForComputers]

41. Maybe I'll reconsider my decision to not post in this forum after Nov 7.

The opportunity to enjoy schadenfreude will be too big to resist.

[rrneck]

43. "from someone with 272 Gungeon posts, and NONE elsewhere"

I couldn't find the person with 272 posts, but I assumed I just missed it.

"The Newsroom" is a television show. The producers have determined that there is a market for liberal ideology. They are exploiting that market. And making money doing it. How much of that money do you think will find its way into the pockets of people who really need it? How many self styled liberals will consume that show without giving a second thought to the ideology it promotes, right or wrong? That's how the 1% wins. They make money regardless of who's right because we have become a country of ideological consumers instead of thinking citizens.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. It's TPaine7, the thread starter

About TPaine7
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Sat Apr 12, 2008, 09:28 PM
Number of posts: 3,502
Number of posts, last 90 days: 272
Favorite forum: NA
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 272 posts in the last 90 days (100% of total posts)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=218832

I bet there hasn't been a single pro-Democratic post in those 272. Someone who supports Democrats must have been able to find something to say outside this group in the last 90 days.

Are you also saying The Newsroom should be attacking Obama? Instead of pointing out the truth that he has made no move to control guns in his three and a half years as president? Instead, you appear to be saying that watching The Newsroom is a way to let the 1% win.



I'll say that again.

WHAT THE FUCK?

[rrneck]

49. LOL! Yep, I missed it. My dumb ass. Sorry about that.

I'm saying it's just a television show that is designed to make rich people richer. They don't care who's right or wrong. They don't care who shoots who. They don't care about the issue at all. They only care about making money by telling people what they want to hear. And all too many people on the left lap that shit up like manna from heaven not because it's right or wrong, but because it sounds good. It's just another example of disaster capitalism feeding on the fears of the 99%.

Haven't you noticed how many discussions at DU are little more than "my dad can beat up your dad" with think tanks, lobbying groups, talking heads, and other assorted ideology manufacturers as the "dads"? Acronyms for various groups get flung about like rocks as if any of them gave a shit about anything but making money. I don't care who says what. I think they're all full of shit. I don't trust any of them as far as I can piss on them. Democrats will continue to shoot themselves in the foot until they start acting like citizens instead of bourgeoisie consumers.

As for Obama and gun policy: I don't think he will touch it with a ten foot pole. That pole may shrink to nine feet if he gets reelected. Gun policy is a chip in a much larger policy game that may get traded, but it's so hot I doubt he will have any inclination to use it no matter how he feels about guns. If I thought it would straighten out the rest of this mess, I'd trade it in a minute. But I know that won't happen because the people we need to get in the Democratic big tent will bring a shit load of guns with them, and if we ask them to check them at the door, they'll go to the red tent down the road.

As far as TPaine7 goes, he's one of the most thoughtful posters in the gungeon and an asset to DU. I have found in my experience here that when I disagree with the biggest "antis", I can shut them down with a sentence or two (or in the case of this thread, an image of my phone). But when I disagree with a "gunnie" I have to give it some thought. That's because this is a safe haven for every liberal political trope in the book, which is why I got in a pissing contest with Warren in the first place. He thought I said something bad about liberals and took a shot at me by calling me a racist. That kind of petty bullshit is SOP for the gungeon. You want to be pro gun here, you need to have your shit together, and TPaine7 does.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Has TPaine7 ever said anything in favour of a Democrat?

As opposed to attacking one, like in this OP?

[rrneck]

54. Beats me.

Why don't you employ the search feature. Or better yet, ask him. Or better still, research Obama's position on guns throughout his career and confront TPaine7 with your research. That's the only criticism I see in an OP that is actually about the inaccuracies found in a television show.

"Obama's published and well known anti-gun positions"

That reads like a criticism of the president's former, and apparently not secret, position on guns to me, but I could be wrong. I've already missed a few important details in this subthread.

It looks to me as if TPaine7's point is not that the president is right or wrong about gun policy, but that a television show has indulged in certain factual inaccuracies for dramatic effect. But I don't know why you're arguing with me about it, it's not my OP and I already told you I thought I thought anything that comes out of the idiot box is bullshit, no matter what position it claims to support.

If you think TPaine7 is some sort of closeted, secret, right wing apologist here to pollute the delicate minds of devout Democrats with "right wing talking points" get in there and kick his ass. If you can.

[TPaine7]

61. Thank you very much for your kind words, here and elsewhere in this thread.

You pretty much nailed my point:

It looks to me as if TPaine7's point is not that the president is right or wrong about gun policy, but that a television show has indulged in certain factual inaccuracies for dramatic effect.

I would only add ideological motives to the dramatic effect motive.

The reason I take this program seriously is that it intends to be taken seriously. And it is serious. It is attempting to educate and shape opinion. (And for others who may be reading, no, that doesn't mean that I accept this show as an authority on anything, just that I don't view it as light humor.)

Similarly, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are serious shows. Yes, they're comedies, but they aim to inform and shape opinion. And quite frankly, they are very often superior to the commentary by the combatants on CNN.

The news shows are so commercialized, so "balanced" that they feel they have to give Flat Earthers equal time and respect with Spherical Earthers. This show beautifully says that, but it couldn't get rid of the anti-gun baggage.

[gejohnston]

57. I don't remember him saying anything nice about a Republican

but I thought we were talking about fictional characters. I'm guessing you think Mike Papantonio and other folks at Ring of Fire are right wing because they don't have many kind words for Holder. As me me, I'm still waiting for some miners, oil field workers, and the Gulf ecosystem to get their justice.

[krispos42]

46. so then she's no worse off by carrying the gun? n/t

[Doctor_J]

48. Anything with a liberal bent should be banned from TV!!!!!

you folks are really amazing.

[arcane1]

51. Does every character in a fictional show have to tell the truth with every word?

[rrneck]

56. Of course not.

Literalism will be the death of us.