“But he suggested that nothing needs to be done at all.” There it is. The lie that lies at the heart of the Raw Story article based on my interview with Tony Ortega. I did not suggest that “nothing needs to be done at all” about “gun violence.” I told Mr. Ortega that locking up gang bangers and other violent criminals was the best way to reduce firearms-related homicides in the U.S. I also pointed out that we could stop spree killers by being more alert to seriously deranged individuals and locking them up. But that didn’t suit Mr. Ortega’s narrative: Farago thinks firearms-related death and destruction is no big deal. Gun problem? the headline asks, putting words in my mouth. What gun problem? Truth be told . . .
It is and it isn’t. I mean, Raw Story didn’t totally misrepresent my views on gun control. For example:
“Kids die accidentally — It’s terrible. But percentage-wise it’s not a huge problem. It just isn’t. Guns are safer than swimming pools,” Farago says.
But this does:
“Criminals are the number one source of gun crime. What are you going to do, disarm them? That’s not working in Chicago very well.”
And he denied that mass shootings are a problem, despite what the media might say.
“How are you going to stop Adam Lanza from shooting children? I don’t think there’s a law that’s going to stop him,” Farago says. “I don’t want to seem insensitive. I’ve known people who have been victims of shootings. I knew the doctor who was shot whose death started off the Brady campaign. He was my family doctor, and he was shot in a parking lot two blocks from his house. But to say that it’s an epidemic, it’s not factual.”
Yes, well, I asked if gun control laws would disarm criminals. And I said that mass shootings aren’t an enormous problem when seen in context. Which is exactly what Ortega denied my remarks: context. I told Ortega that Lanza should have been stopped before he went on his rampage, but that the law itself didn’t stop him. I pointed out that Lanza violated laws to commit his crime.
Anyway, you get the picture. Ortega had a perspective to promote and promote it he did, deliberately misinterpreting my remarks to make me seem callous. No surprise there. In fact, I’m thankful that the overall gist of my point-of-view made it through the editing process. Or did it?
After your segments with Fineman, one must wonder why on earth you’re surprised.
The first thing that popped into my mind exactly.
Dunno if yall already thought of this or not but have you thought of maybe doin interviews yourselves on your own youtube channel, podcast, or blogtalk radio channel?
If RF used his own youtube channel, it would be just preaching to the choir, like TTAG. He needs to venture onto the other camps turf once in a while so that they will hear info from another source.
Youtube is “the other camp’s turf”
Have you been to youtube? It’s almost nothing but cute pets and gun videos.
Hey! I think I just came up with the next youtube fad: I’m going to teach Maru to shoot USPSA!
I was referring to the comments more so than the videos. A larger population are lurkers not posters.
Thats sort of what you get when “the other camp” locks down comments on their indefensible videos.
No, it’s everyone’s turf. How do you think, say, Hickok45 would be doing if he tried to go to Hollywood and get himself a show? Kirsten Joy Weiss? James O’Keefe? Anyone can post videos on YouTube, and people who get misrepresented, or ignored, by the mainstream media absolutely should. The gatekeepers may still be standing there, but there are several holes in the wall nearby.
That was my point. Youtube is the place to expose our ideals and values because so many viewers are from the other camp.
Jesus, can you sue him for libel or something? None of this is near the truth. Also, what is Creative Loafing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Loafing
Creative Loafing, also known as CL Inc., was an Atlanta-based publisher of alternative weekly newspapers
“Also, what is Creative Loafing?”
An “alternative” weekly that has an advertiser base of the ilk of headshops, outcall massage providers, and ads for the local raves.
I work in pit bull rescue and journalists do it all the time to us as well! We are callous animal nuts who do not care about human fatalities in their eyes when in actuality all we want is responsible pet owners. Just like there isn’t a gun that is more deadly or responsible for more injury there isn’t a breed of dog either.
I think Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park/Fort Minor put it best in “Get me Gone”
http://youtu.be/m-bbSmDq9aw?t=48s
Record your entire interviews from now on and post them at TTAG so any questions as to what was said and what the editor actually printed cab be verified.
That may not be a bad idea actually. The problem is that these days some interviewers will specifically ask you not to record yourself for this very reason and publications will quickly take notice and steer clear of you if you get a reputation for keeping your own records and making them public. Still, might be worth a try.
That’s just crazy talk. If an interviewer won’t let you record an interview than you should keep your mouth shut.
I don’t think RF is saying he misquoted him but rather the author draws a conclusion that is opposite to what RF thinks he conveyed. Well that now leaves the reader to make up their own mind now and the problem is that the audience maybe a bunch of stupid leftists and independent thinking isn’t their hallmark.
Concur. If the interviewer wont agree to your own recording of the interview, then it should be assumed that the interviewer intends on reediting your conversation in order misrepresent what you actually say.
^^
+1 to this. If I can’t trust the interviewer before they even begin the conversation, it’s not worth continuing.
You need to wear a wire
umm…you expected integrity on their end…not word twisting and cherry picking to make you look like the problem…?
Welcome to the world of media interviews.
Surely this isn’t the first time, nor will it probably be the last time an agenda-driven reporter takes quotes out of context from an interview with you.
John
Did you record the interview? I’d recommend that you always do, and do it ostentatiously, and get their permission to record on the first part of the tape.
If they say no, then terminate the interview, because they intend to distort and don’t want evidence of the context.
Yeah and wait to tell the interviewer after he has invested a bunch of time preparing for the interviewer. It’s fun to have them in the lurch like that.
If you conduct your portion of the interview in a one-party state, you don’t need to inform the reporter.
Robert:
Didn’t you work for a news organizaiton once upon a time? Did you expect professional courtesy?
This is what journalists do across the political spectrum.
You walked into the lion’s den and got bit. Why are you shocked by this?
Au contraire mon frere! He went into the lions den and came out with an exposé.
maybe it will get him a few extra dates?
Don’t be suprised when you cast pearls before swine and they get trampled in the mud.
People not seeking wisdom won’t find it, even if accepting wisdom would take less effort than rejecting it. Accepting wisdom requires a person to admit that they don’t already know everything, while rejecting it sustains the conceited and lazy notion that he does know everything. Laziness and conceit are the two major hallmarks of modern American liberalism after all.
^ This.
+2
It’s alright RF. I’ll be making my own magazine soon. I’ll put every word you say into the context you had it in IN THE FIRST PLACE, unlike Mr. Ortega here.
You have to learn how to switch the topic of discussion to Israeli Super Models !!! Like mental Judo, you duck, bob and weave. Redirect their energy to other directions !!!
Bad luck Robert, but I’d have expected more. You used to work in media, surely you know that journalistic integrity outside TTAG is rare. Record the interviews, as Scot suggested, and when you get screwed over you can double back without looking like Susie ‘loony’ Madrak. (Please correct me if I have the wrong name)
Maybe but: I worked for the federal government for many years, including being in the Army long before any of you were born.
I’m a facilities engineer and sometimes we had problems that became news. After a few poorly written stories we started to put it in writing so they could get it right. Not on your life! They missed the big points, our copy was sometimes reduced or increased (guess that had to do with what fit), some of the reporters were truly idiots, add in the issue of passing on information from one person to another to another to another, political correctness, MSM’s bias and any other s**t you can think of and it’s a miracle they get the date and location right and the reason they were there.
Don’t give the press ANY credit. The story as reported is probably somewhat different or completely different.
BTW, don’t trust federal government statistics either. I used to put them together and believe me, garbage in . . . garbage out. . . reality in . . . political correctness and bias out.
So why don’t we just report unemployment as opposed to “seasonal unemployment” and the dropping out of the unemployed who are no longer looking? Because politicians think we’re idiots.
I miss America . . . a lot.
So RF has one of the biggest firearms blogs on the internet. I’d be demanding the inclusion of my own un-edited closing paragraph after seeing the final editor-approved version to be included with paper/internet publish. An alternative would be to publish verbatim the entire interview on the website. If you don’t like those terms than go get an interview with some YouTuber with 300 views.
“Don’t give the press ANY credit. The story as reported is probably somewhat different or completely different.”
And the first thing that came to MY mind when I read that paragraph is the Cliven Bundy story.
Close follow-up: Chipotle and Open Carry Texas.
It is funny…we all acknowledge that the MSM is full of bull feces, but too many of us take them at their word every single day.
when I interview you Robert for a paper I wrote, you at no point suggested that nothing need be done. this is just another example of how some ‘journalists’ have no moral qualms about printing outright lies as long as it suits their agenda
Callous…not so much. When a group deals with problems based solely on feeling and emotion anyone without that same feeling and emotion will be labeled callous.
A rational and reasonable approach is akin to speaking in tounges.
What we need to understand about “Progressives” is, doing something about a problem involves legislation. Enforcing those laws never crosses their mind because it is irrelevant to the “feel good” craving. They pass a law, they get a high almost like an addict. After a while during the withdrawal phase, they start feeling bad again. Godless people often feel this way. They search for another straw man and fabricate a crisis solely for purpose of passing another law. They feel good about themselves until that wears off and the cycle continues. They never reflect on weather the law had the enunciated intended results. When Conservatives force them to face the failures of any law or social program, they change the history to avoid admitting failure. Gun buy backs are a perfect example on a small scale of a feel good program that solves absolutely nothing.
What in blazes does “godlessness” have to do with it? I know plenty of religious people who do it, and plenty of “godless” people who don’t.
Some people just can’t let an opportunity to take a swipe at the people they don’t like go by, even when the category is irrelevant to the current topic.
Perhaps he meant ‘godless’ in a broader, more abstract sense, rather than ‘religious.’
Not all religious people have God in their lives…not anywhere near the center of their lives, if at all.
Not all non-religious people have No God in their lives at all.
But, one way or another, does any of that take away from his larger point? There can be commitment to actually solving a real problem, or there can be only talk (lip service) about it. One political faction aligns with the “lip service” side far, far more than not.
It’s because the problems they purport to want to be solving are not their goal. Progressive fundamentalist ideology does not acknowledge the same rules of “right” and “wrong” that most of us, even some progressives among us, would apply.
I got his larger point and agreed with it. It was the gratuitous out-of-the blue swipe at atheists that annoyed me. Atheism has NOTHING to do with either integrity or its lack. But he just had to piss on them anyway.
I am not a religious person. I understand the importance of belief or at least curiosity in a spiritual presence. I consider myself Agnostic. I believe that faith is just that…faith. I believe that no man can know truth and thus you need faith. I don’t emphasize faith in my life over seeking truth. But I find peace in the satisfaction that I am incapable of finding truth in this life form.
I took the Belief-O-Matic quiz and I came out as Liberal Quaker. http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/index.aspx Quaker because of my belief that you live your life everyday as if it was Sunday. In other words, don’t act any different at work than you would in church or let your life be your church without needing to physically set foot in a church. Liberal because I drink alcohol.
Progressives worship Government. If they would put God first then they would have peace in their lives and would not have to screw up everyone else’s lives in the name of Social Responsibility.
Then your complaint is with progressives, not atheists, I know plenty of atheists who don’t worship the government.
I never mentioned Atheists. Nancy Pelosi is Catholic, Reid is Mormon, I think Bloomberg is Jewish. Their corruption and lack of respect for individual rights is a Godless platform. As a matter of fact, God was stricken from the official platform at the Democrat convention.
An atheist that acts according to God’s way is not Godless. There is something in his greater conscience that is guiding him.
Just came across this interview with Ann Coulter. I have not seen this before nor have I read her book. I do not follow Ann and she sure doesn’t follow me, but when she speaks, it is what I am already thinking. She is more intelligent then I so maybe this will put in context what I was saying.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2006/08/Church-Militant-Ann-Coulter-On-God-Faith-And-Liberals.aspx?p=1
I record every conversation with everyone, wife included. I live in a 1 party state don’t have to notify any others they are being recorded. Check state law in the state being conducted in, some require all be notified & consent. If they refuse to you recording tell them to have a nice day
“Anyway, you get the picture. Ortega had a perspective to promote and promote it he did, deliberately misinterpreting my remarks to make me seem callous. No surprise there.”
Yup – take it as a given that “mainstream” media coverage of guns and civilian firearms owners will be biased and contain (at best) mistakes, and more likely lies. Then you may be pleasantly surprised if they ever get it right.
As with cops there’s no point in talking to the media. Their mind is made up and all they will hear from you is what they want to hear.
I’m shocked — shocked!
I have to admit I went through great trepidation when a reporter who I *knew* had run a smear campaign against a good man wanted to interview me, but fortunately said reporter didn’t choose to come after me, and I don’t think they ever realized what a complete piece of human filth I considered them.
I’ve been interviewed several times by the media for one thing or another. Hell, for a while, I was a journalism major, back when integrity, and getting it right, mattered. Even back then (the 1970’s) editors and reporters got it wrong. This is nothing new.
But the suggestion to record your interviews in the future, RF – even with people who slant to your viewpoint – is a wise one.
BTW, are you planning to write to the Raw Story about your concerns?
I would suggest doing talk show interviews and the like, because your words can’t be twisted nearly as easily (as long as you can shout louder than the host; try to get them to ask and respond rather than interrupt you constantly)
Gun control is a doctor treating a headache from a brain tumor with aspirin, it’s treating a symptom, not the cause and it is generally ineffective. You simply cannot stop a problem by treating the symptom, you have to work on the cause. Better mental healthcare, keeping violent criminals in prison, and working to educate youth about firearms are working on the causes, just as removing a brain tumor is removing the cause of the headache. Unfortunately in both cases the correct thing to do is both costly and difficult, which is why politicians don’t work on the causes, because they are too stupid to be brain surgeons.
Well, gee, let’s look at a recent example:
Recently in Flint, Michigan a suspect was killed (and a home leveled) in a confrontation with police with Daron Raymond Gaylor. Court records show Gaylor was arrested July 25, 2013, following a traffic stop by the Michigan State Police and was charged with felony firearm, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, carrying a concealed weapon and assaulting/resisting a police officer after he fled
from troopers on foot while handcuffed. Gaylor posted a $15,000 bond July 30, 2013, and was released, according to court records. However, he was arrested again soon after on suspicion of a federal gun violation. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Donald Dawkins confirmed Gaylor was arrested and lodged in the Genesee County Jail. But, Dawkins said he was released from the jail in September 2013 after the case was forwarded to federal prosecutors for possible charges. However, U.S. Attorney spokeswoman Gina Balaya said the case was never referred to her office for prosecution. No federal charges were ever filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office against Gaylor. Following his release, court records show Gaylor failed to show up to an Oct. 22, 2013, court date on the pending state charges. He eventually turned himself in after a bench warrant was issued by Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman. Lang said Gaylor told Hayman that he missed court because he saved the court date in his phone, but the phone no longer worked. Court records show that Hayman allowed Gaylor to remain free on bond after he turned himself in Nov. 4. When he was killed he was charged with first-degree murder, assault with intent to murder and three other gun charges after police claim he was involved in a June 2 double shooting that killed 28-year-old Ali McZick and critically injured 19-year-old Tyrell Gaylor at a bus stop near Martin Luther King Avenue and Welch Boulevard. Gaylor was also wanted for questioning in the July 5 shooting that left the previously injured Tyrell Gaylor — his cousin — dead and an 8-year-old boy critically injured. All which occurred after he had been let out, yet again, free to roam the streets and kill, kill, kill.
Too late, Robert Farago….You’re clearly a blood gargling heathen. Accept this as your role in life and move along..
Time to video tape all interviews and when it goes pear shaped like this, post the video all over the interwebs.
Why would you be surprised? Agenda, agenda, agenda.
Oscar Wilde to reporters, “I rely upon you to misrepresent me.”
IDK, seems pretty legit to me. They called you crimson, you were going for more like ripe cherry. Close enough; coulda been worse.
One cold hearted Bastid there Robert. You were simply misunderstood because of the children’s bones that were stuck in your teeth as you were talking to him. (Or something even more bloodthirsty in the imaginings of the writer)
All right, all right, I think I can lay this one to rest. You folks are missing the forest for all the trees. Step off and look at the bigger picture.
One person said Godlessness is a problem, and another person automatically concluded it was directed at atheists. It is not. This is very simple – most atheists, or anybody else that might be thought of as God-less, may well be perfectly upstanding citizens. But there are bad apples in every bunch. Simply put, Michael is contending (and rightfully so, IMO) that people who do not make God a part of their life commit more crimes as a RATE compared to religious folks. Forest, trees….get it? Likewise this same concept holds true for a number of social facts. And THAT’s why we’re where we’re at nowadays.
Tom
Simply put, Michael is contending (and rightfully so, IMO) that people who do not make God a part of their life commit more crimes as a RATE compared to religious folks.
If that’s what he was trying to claim he sure phrased himself poorly. Instead he lays all the blame on “godless” people and the implication is quite clear, “godless” people are like this. He’s trying to fuzzy things up after the fact by trying to claim many atheists really DO have god in their lives (where does he get off telling them what they believe)? So THAT atheist isn’t behaving like a total psychopathic asshole, so he must not be a REAL atheist!
Oh, and if you do believe in god but do this stuff anyway? Well, you aren’t a REAL believer then.
Either way, that’s called the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. And it’s utter horseshit. And frankly very insulting to atheists.
Honestly, folks, let’s just concentrate on the deed instead of trying to claim one’s religion or lack thereof drives you to do it. I’ve met jerks and good people of almost every religious stripe. It’s irrelevant here, and if you’d quit trying to decide what people MUST think about the issue based on what you see them do, you’d see that.
Do you have something to say to me Steve? Then say it to me and stop lying about what I said to other readers. You seem to be the only one that can’t comprehend what I wrote. You don’t have to agree with what I said but disagreeing with what I did not say seems like you are just picking a fight. I have no problem with Atheists besides the fact that they get so offended by those that don’t have the same belief. Say something else and prove my point.
Always record your interviews with the press. ALWAYS. Say “I’m speaking on the record and I’m making sure I have a record of this interview as well.”
When you put your recorder out onto a table when you’re talking with the press, you always see their faces change. Always.
They know you’re onto them. The fact that you’re recording your interview means that you know they’re liars and frauds, and you’re not going to stand for being their patsy.
Hey Bob, thanks for engaging insensate hoplophobes, even though you probably knew you weren’t gonna get a fair shake.
But, not sure if you were familiar with RawStory.com’s usual modus operandi of non-sequitur hyperbolic headlines and extreme story edits and BS-summarizations of complex, nuanced subject matters, fit for their sub -20IQ non-existent audience, but did you record the phone interview at all?
This should be a given to anyone who gets interviewed on TV or in print by the MSM. On TV, Bob as you are familiar, the interview subjects usually have no corresponding video monitor of the ‘anchor’ or ‘reporter’ interviewing them. Thus, they’re intentionally forbidden from seeing the MSM asshole’s leading facial expressions/body language/gestures, along with all the subconscious subtle cues present in every human to human interaction.
As such, I’d recommend EVERY member of the “armed intelligentsia” to use the ever ubiquitous smartphone, to film or at least audio record the entire encounter from pre-live to post wrap, if they’re ever interviewed by the media.
If the MSM hacks are uncomfortable with it? Fuck ’em. Do it anyway.
If they insist on pulling the ye ol ‘Well…well…but…but… this is a non-single party consent state!’ – bullshit, then say: ‘FU, if you’re too chickenshit to record yourself and me in a full live encounter/exchange, I’m gonna print, say, videotape just that, to my millions of infinitely larger audience than your nonexistent ones, that you’re going to spin the interview and were afraid of being interviewed.’ Or, something to that effect. xD
Seriously, some passing kitten video on YouTube gets more views than any primetime news or cable TV shows, as is, let alone some foundation-funded Advocate-magazine-lite online rag pretending to be “100% independent journalism” (a hilariously euphemistic bullshit PR motto…like Faux’News’ “she doth protests too much” of “fair and balanced”), run by Mike Rogers (not that Rep. Mike Rogers, the policestate-dildofucker and fmr. Federal Bureau of false flag Instigation asshole turned 4% approval/less popular than dogshit-asshole), the gay activist who literally knows every closet homo politician in DC, and holds onto the list for sunny days, until he feels the need to ‘out’ his fellow homosexuals.
These people are living in the bubble of their own delusions. And, it’s high time everyone started treating them as such: when you’re the hot girl, and know you’re the hot girl, you’re the one who gets to say “NO!”, Farago.
Anyway, would’ve love to have heard the intonation of the questions Ortega asked, and how you responded. Written verbiage is like sooooo like OMG like OFWG, Farago. lol. Audio baby, audio…and video, if you got’em.
xD
If ex-mayor Bloomberg would invest his millions into job programs for inner-city youth instead of throwing it away on anti-gun lobbying, he might actually have an efeect on the murder rate, with guns and otherwise.
Farago thinks firearms-related death and destruction is no big deal. Gun problem? the headline asks, putting words in my mouth. What gun problem? We need more badly needed sensible and reasonable (TM) gun laws. We need to ban over capacity 30 caliber clip ghost guns which can be emptied in half a second (TM) . We need to ban shoulder thingies that go up (TM). We need to regulate gun terrorists(TM). We need to eliminate gun bullies (TM).Think of the children (TM). If only you could see the emotion!(TM).The NRA is a terrorist organization of baby killers (TM). We need to close the gun show loop hole (TM).
My take? You came, you saw, and you kicked his condescending ass. His edits did not diminish your straight-forward, plain-spoken answers. You came across as smart, honest and passionate, because you have the truth on your side…and the law.
That’s why I carefully consider anything I see/hear/read in the news. Just today I was at the hospital, and the TV in the waiting room had some news channel or show on. HLN, whatever that is (shows how much I watch the news). They were talking about the the wife of the guy who left his baby in the car while he was at work. They spent like 45 minutes talking about how her attorney issued a statement that she wanted to be left alone and left out of the media’s attention. So they focused 90% of their attention on her, questioning why she was being so “secretive”. The more they talked, the more it seemed to me that they were hinting that she and her husband had actually conspired to murder their child. Then they had a little report on how kids being left in hot cars was an “epidemic”. They said 44 kids died in the US last year because they were left in hot cars, and 17 so far this year. My first thought was “300 million people in this country and 44 kids in a year is an epidemic? Really?” A tragedy, sure, but not an epidemic.
This is why you give the media nothing. Their entire modus operandi for dealing with their intellectual enemies is to give them enough rope to hang themselves with. Regardless of how in-depth and reasoned your responses were, they need a nice catchy soundbite cherry picked for whatever government/corporation-approved agenda they’re pushing and truth will always be lost in the process.
I’m surprised you talked to him. You have to know that anyone who is anti-gun is going to edit what you say to support his side and make you look like a nut. That is totally what he tried to do, make you look like a nut.
When doing interviews, ALWAYS bring and use your own recording device, so that the record can be set straight after publication/airing.
Comments are closed.