Overkill (New York Times defends Zumbo, Attacks FreeRepublic in Editorial)

New York Times ^ | 3/3/07 | NYT Editorial Board

[CondiRice08]

A famous hunter and outdoorsman recently voiced misgivings about people who use assault rifles to kill prairie dogs. “Assault rifle” is a much touchier term. It is generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news. But the gun lobby despises “assault rifle,” considering it a false, scary label tacked onto perfectly legitimate weapons by people who want to take away others’ rights. That is a debate for another day. “Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.” Until he wrote that, Mr. Zumbo was one of the most admired hunters in America, a widely read magazine writer with his own cable TV program and lots of lecture appearances and corporate sponsorships. He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots. His 250-word posting caused a huge eruption on gun blogs, and Mr. Zumbo instantly became their second-most-hated man, after the gun-control advocate James Brady. He lost his blog, was dumped by Outdoor Life magazine and was disowned by the National Rifle Association, after 40 years of membership. His corporate sponsors, including the gunmaker Remington, ditched him. His cable show was canceled. The N.R.A. issued a chilling statement warning Congress to take heed of Mr. Zumbo’s fate. By the time Blaine Harden told his story in The Washington Post, Mr. Zumbo was professionally dead. The paranoia and gloating that Mr. Zumbo’s name has evoked on gun discussion boards like ar15.com and freerepublic.com speak for themselves.p>

[Yomin Postelnik]

Was just emailed the article from someone in Toronto who got it from a lady in Montreal with some nonsense about "look what the right wing extremists are doing" before the link. Here was my reply - thought it might be worth sharing if anyone gets the same or just for a chuckle: Where should I begin? The article is a total distortion of events - not uncommon to the Times. The way they've spun it this time there's not even a semblance of truth left in it. Here's what really happened: The guy had a cable show sponsored exclusively by Remington, an arms manufacturer. Well, he spoke up against his sole sponsor's product on air and they terminated their sponsorship. Whether he's right or not, this was to be expected and wasn't the result of a movement. If your sole sponsor is Krispy Kreme you only start telling people to get on the excercise bike and lay off the doughnuts after you've lined up another sponsor. In the company's statement: "As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington." Do you really think that gun advocates care either way what some nitwit hunter with a local TV show with a weekly audience of 300 thinks? They'd realize that they'd be making a celebrity of him by responding? Of course, to the Gnu Yak Thymes, he's a "famous hunter" because this description helps the Times make a point they apparently can't while reporting the truth. The fact that the NYT calls freerepublic.com a "Gun Forum" shows just how myopic and disinterested they are. If it's not from New York and doesn't have a New York way of thinking it doesn't exist. Never mind that the city was a liberal-made slum until a guy came along with some conservative principles (at least in terms of business/taxes = employment and crime prevention/educational programs to curb offense). As to the substance of the issue - which, again, has nothing to do with this case other than being the reason for the Times' distortion of news to change people's opinions: Every time gun control is imposed in an area already filled with guns the crime rate goes up. Why? Simple logic. The criminals don't give up their guns. Law abiding citizens do, further emboldening the criminals. Try comparing the per capita murder rate in Toronto to present day or even post-Dinkins New York. You'll be shocked. By contrast, rural areas in which there are more guns than people have some of the lowest crime rates anywhere in North America. It's all about community and nothing about guns with the exception of guns giving pause to criminals. This story isn't about right wing extremists. It's a story about left winged extremist editors, reporters and a publisher who distort and spue news to suit further their own world views and a public that has been duped more than one too many times.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Sorry about that last post - seems Word Wrap was off (trying it again - mods please delete first if possible):

Was just emailed the article from someone in Toronto who got it from a lady in Montreal with some nonsense about "look what the right wing extremists are doing" before the link.

Here was my reply - thought it might be worth sharing if anyone gets the same or just for a chuckle:

Where should I begin? The article is a total distortion of events - not uncommon to the Times. The way they've spun it this time there's not even a semblance of truth left in it.

Here's what really happened: The guy had a cable show sponsored exclusively by Remington, an arms manufacturer. Well, he spoke up against his sole sponsor's product on air and they terminated their sponsorship. Whether he's right or not, this was to be expected and wasn't the result of a movement. If your sole sponsor is Krispy Kreme you only start telling people to get on the excercise bike and lay off the doughnuts after you've lined up another sponsor.

In the company's statement:

"As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington."

Do you really think that gun advocates care either way what some nitwit hunter with a local TV show with a weekly audience of 300 thinks? They'd realize that they'd be making a celebrity of him by responding? Of course, to the Gnu Yak Thymes, he's a "famous hunter" because this description helps the Times make a point they apparently can't while reporting the truth.

The fact that the NYT calls freerepublic.com a "Gun Forum" shows just how myopic and disinterested they are. If it's not from New York and doesn't have a New York way of thinking it doesn't exist. Never mind that the city was a liberal-made slum until a guy came along with some conservative principles (at least in terms of business/taxes = employment and crime prevention/educational programs to curb offense).

As to the substance of the issue - which, again, has nothing to do with this case other than being the reason for the Times' distortion of news to change people's opinions:

Every time gun control is imposed in an area already filled with guns the crime rate goes up. Why? Simple logic. The criminals don't give up their guns. Law abiding citizens do, further emboldening the criminals. Try comparing the per capita murder rate in Toronto to present day or even post-Dinkins New York. You'll be shocked. By contrast, rural areas in which there are more guns than people have some of the lowest crime rates anywhere in North America. It's all about community and nothing about guns with the exception of guns giving pause to criminals.

This story isn't about right wing extremists. It's a story about left winged extremist editors, reporters and a publisher who distort and spue news to suit further their own world views and a public that has been duped more than one too many times.

[Jet Jaguar]

Well put.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Thanks :)

[airborne]

Being attaked by 'The New York Times' is a badge of honor!

[airborne]

Gun?

What gun?

[neverdem]

BANG!

[IYAAYAS]

For the old grey whore that's almost a tight grip on reality. I still don't think the left understands we'll shoot if they push hard enough.

[GATOR NAVY]

Of course this sort of thing could never happen in the loving, caring wings of the democrats and liberals... After all, they're so open-minded, tolerant, and accepting of other points of view. Like when Senator Joe Lieberman, a man who has a 90%+ hard left liberal voting record, supports the War on Terror and the war in Iraq, is thrown under the bus by the dems?

Bingo. See here for the slimes editorial We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

[GATOR NAVY]

Nonsense! He has never had more professional opportunities than he has now. Zumbo can easily work this gig into tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees, consecutive NYT best seller lists, and invites to all the best parties in liberaldom.

First off, there is no doubt that Zumbo stepped on his d**k big time. I've seen a lot of posts suggesting the same thing as yours, and you're right- if Zumbo wants, this avenue is open to him. I guess we'll see in the near future how sincere his apology was, i.e either he fades away quietly in admittance that he screwed the pooch or he becomes a spokesman for the left.

[txroadkill]

The Dixie who?????

Never heard of them.

[narses]

Tuesday, June 20, 2000 MAYOR GIULIANI AND SPEAKER VALLONE ANNOUNCE CITY LAWSUIT AGAINST GUN INDUSTRY

It's a New York thing.

[Lancey Howard]

Interestingly, the NY Times online edition of the editorial uses hot links for the two sites mentioned, including Free Republic. Good. Maybe it will bring even more people on board.

[Red Steel]

But it is more likely that they DO know the difference and are purposely obscuring the truth from their readers. For that they deserve to lose their jobs, to suffer tarring and feathering, and to be run out of town on a rail.

Correct. It's an effective tool in the liberal and media play book to bastardize words to fit their agenda. To name a couple of other words that have been bastardized in the last 30 years:

stalking
swiftboating

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

TANKS for the thread,,,,,

DEER NY SLIME,,,

Zumbo took a well aimed back-shot at all gun owners and
America in general,,,just MHO...

Zumbo missed,,,

FR Don't Miss,,,

Got em' with our "Quick-Draw",,,

Zumbo is a Dumbo... Life's Messy... Clean It Up...

Git Over It,,,Punks...

[paratrooper82]

I think the reaction to "zumbo" by Americans sent a chill and actually frightened the NYT liberal socialist.

After all, the anti-gun zealots are pushing their (remove all semi-auto's) agenda again, and the last thing they want is for Americans to remember 1994!

[OKIEDOC]

Stories like this explain why the New York Times is sinking like so many Maim Stream Newspapers.

Here is something for the NYT to think about.

Just how many liberal water carrying news papers can be made profitable between less than 50% of the country declaring itself as moderate to liberal.

Did not Rupert Murdoch teach you clowns anything when he started Fox News.

[restornu]

Guess you never heard of paragraphs!

[rvoitier]

Barney Frank likes Juicy Fruits.

[LibWhacker]

The paranoia and gloating that Mr. Zumbo’s name has evoked on gun discussion boards like ar15.com and freerepublic.com speak for themselves.

Yeah, like, they're still around? After our lawyers sent them notification that they had to excerpt all our articles about guns, instead of reproducing them in their entirety, they'd run out of things to say to one another and the site would whither up and go away. But golly, they're still here, all these years later, talking about guns!