31 May 2008

Elitist Media and Ohio Castle Doctrine

Well, we are still awaiting Gov. Ted Strickland's signature on landmark legislation -- Castle Doctrine that protects the rights of law abiding citizens who defend themselves against deadly attack, and a plethora of fixes to our problem-plagued CCW law.

But would Ohio's major newspapers tell their readers such? Let's take a look.

Columbus Dispatch -- the most recent story the capital city's newspaper has printed on this subject was coverage of the Ohio House of Representatives passage of SB 184. No mention of the Ohio Senate coming back to concur on every point of the changes to the bill, and its movement to Strickland for signature. Interesting . . .

Dayton Daily News -- In an editorial appearing in the Sunday edition, the DDN editors continue to beat the drum that law enforcement doesn't want this. I would suggest that a handful of big city chiefs of police don't like it (they've almost always objected to private citizen self defense), along with salaried executive directors of lobbying organizations. Amazingly, there is a mention that Strickland is expected to sign the bill.

(Cleveland) Plain Dealer -- same coverage approach as the Dispatch story.

Cincinnati Enquirer -- no coverage in recent weeks; nothing on the paper's website

Akron Beacon-Journal -- coverage focused on the power of "the gun lobby," and how Strickland doesn't have a sense of balance between safety and the NRA's influence, as compared to former Gov. Bob Taft, the disgraced politician who left office after pleading guilty to numerous ethics violations. Of course, the Beacon's story appeared all the way back on 22 May. Not a word that Ohioans are safer now that 184 is headed for a gubernatorial signature.

Canton Repository -- no coverage in recent weeks; nothing on the paper's website.

(Youngstown) Vindicator -- no coverage on the paper's website.

The Blade (Toledo) -- so far, the only print news coverage from a big city Ohio newspaper talking about the bill being readied for signature; overall, not a bad piece.

So there you have it . . . selective coverage of common sense citizen safety legislation. But little coverage of the final disposition of the bill because the newspapers, a police benefits bargaining union, a disgraced chiefs of police group, county prosecutors who don't want to do their jobs, and others think they are better than Ohio's honest taxpayers.

News outlets are supposed to report the news. Without regard for their own opinion. And major news has occurred; an important bill is about to be signed that positively affects Ohioans' safety. And the coverage is minimal, or negative.

So, are there still questions about elitism and people who support gun control?

No comments: