Tuesday, May 08, 2007

MSM Scumbag of the Month Award...

...goes to the Nashville Tennessean, who thoughtfully published a searchable database of all the CCW holders in Tennessee. This handily allows thieves, people under restraint for domestic violence, etc., to check whether their intended victims are armed!

Why do newspapers publish CCW lists? Well, it's not because they believe in the public's right to know. I spent years in a newsroom, typing away, and I can tell you from person experience that there is no more elitist environment on the planet than a newsroom. Members of the MSM see themselves as a pure cultural elite — smarter, more worldly, more articulate, more politically savvy than the proles outside the gates. The "public's right to know" is strictly limited to the information the media elite think the peasants "needs to know."

And that information must fit a narrow political agenda.

Let me give you an example, one that helped me end my career in the MSM. I've told this story before, but I think it's instructive n this context. I was working for a daily newspaper in Florida. I'd already done a lap of newspapers in the South, moving up each time I moved. I had what was pretty much a primo newspaper job, the top feature writer. I set my own assignments, kept my own hours, won awards, lived on the beach and in general tried (poorly) to emulate reporter Hildy Johnson in The Front Page.

So, a new desk editor started; we were told he'd been in prison, done his time, and we were instructed not to ask him for detail, because good little liberal believed that all prisoners were victims. Well, the reason I was an excellent reporter was that I had (and sadly still have) a monkey's curiosity; like the guy lying on the sidewalk staring up at the muzzle of Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum, "I gots to know."

So I took the new editor to dinner and kept chipping until he gave it up — he'd had "one of those days" when he just "lost it." I nodded...I've had those days. He said he could have just thrown something...or "strangle his cat"...strangle his cat? But his beloved fiance was there when he "lost it," so he beat her to death with claw hammer.

When the new editor began hitting on the women in the newsroom — lot of years playing "find the soap" in the prison shower! — I took each one aside and told her what the editor had been in the slam for. Predictably, the proverbial feces hit the proverbial F-5 tornado. I was called into the boss' office, threatened with immediate firing and black-balling from the industry and in general yelled and screamed at for an hour or so.

I pointed out that the editor's crime was public record...I'd looked it up. I knew all about public records. It's what I did. So what, yelled the boss? So what? Just because it was on the public record didn't mean I had the right to spread it all around the newsroom, causing a man who had "paid his debt to society" pain and suffering.

I said that until the editor's girlfriend crawled out of her grave, walked into the newsroom and told me it was all her fault, I would continue to make sure that my women friends didn't end up with a claw hammer for a fashion accoutremont after a bad date.

I walked out of that office still with my job and a much better understanding of what "right to know" really meant.

Newspapers publish CCW lists in the hopes of embarrassing/scaring people away from getting permits that can save their lives. At some level, the editors — catering to the same base instinct that causes some sick people to hope for high-speed wrecks at NASCAR races — hope that a crime will be committed, hopefully where a CCW holder is not able to defend him or herself from an attacker. Then the newspaper can do a story that says, see, guns don't work! If the CCW holders succeeds, well, then there isn't a story, is there?

Keep up the good work, guys! By the way, the asteroid's already hit and you're probably wondering about all that dust in the air...


Anonymous said...

Another problem with publishing CCW lists is that it gives the dirtbags a handy list of homes that contain guns. Since most CCW holders own more than one gun, and most of them are likely to be away at work during the day, this means an enterprising scumball can go kick in a few doors and score some hardware for resale or mayhem.

If this does happen, of course it'll provide great fodder for another story: "CCW's Gun Used in 3 Murders!" would be a great headline from the MSM's point of view.

It'd be interesting to follow up on the Tennessean's publication of the lists to see if there's a surge in break-ins at the homes and vehicles of CCW holders. Maybe there will be, and maybe not. But if there is, you can bet the MSM won't care too much, unless perhaps they can wring an editorial out of it demanding that gun owners be forced to buy expensive safes to lock up their guns.

Joe Swaney

Kristopher said...

CCW lists also allow burglars to avoid homes with CCW holders.

And, as was the case earlier, they also allow stalkers to find CCW owning ex-spouses.

No good can come from giving dirtbags private information.

DonWorsham said...

Kristopher said... No good can come from giving dirtbags private information.

Problem is, the info is NOT private. It is time to work the politicians to make this data private.

Anonymous said...

I would love to see somebody post the home address information of the people that work at the paper. These people carry the tremendous burden and duty of the 4th estate and as such cannot be considered anything other than public officials. We should know where they live as should everybody.

Anonymous said...

I want to be very clear about a few things. 1) I live in TN, and I've already looked myself up when I read earlier this afternoon what they had done. 2) I am furious. Not quite violent, but REALLY fucking close. 3) I intend to do EVERYTHING that I can to see to it that as much personal - but public - information is spread far and wide about these assholes... Hopefully every employee, down to the janitor... (If nothing else, maybe I can piss him off bad enough that the editor will end up with a mop in his ass.) But at the bare minimum, the entire editorial staff and publisher(s). 4) If there are any attorneys on here who can think of ANY grounds I have to sue the shit out of them, please let me know. 5) To those who mentioned wondering what - if any - crimes might be committed based on this data, rest assured that if ANYTHING is done that can be attributed to this leak, I will become a dedicated and professional pain in their ass until the day that they die. Worthless, shit-for-brains ratfucks; all of them.

Pete said...

Several years ago I represented (I'm a lawyer) a guy who was being fired by a city do-gooder agency like the housing department or something like that.

He had had the bad taste of confirming a rumor that a new employee there was fresh out of the joint, having raped or murdered somebody (I don't remember which).

Same liberal prisoner is victim mindset there. My client was fired for violating this guy's privacy by pointing out something that was a public record.

I think my client might have gotten away with it if he hadn't used an office computer to print the guy's rap sheet from the available-to-the -public state website. I suspect it wasn't the first time someone used a government computer for other than official business; but it might have been the first time someone admitted it under oath.

It might not have helped my client that I just finished suing the attorney for the appeal board, because she had neglected to pay her own divorce attorney in the state she just moved from, and I was wearing the new suit I bought with her (former) money.