Bloomberg Businessweek Offers Take on Supreme Court Ruling

While mostly an unbiased story, the report from Bloomberg Businessweek does seem – at least to us – to have a slightly annoyed take on the Supreme Court ruling. The piece even has a headline that shows a slight tinge of anti-gun bias: “States Must Honor Gun Rights, U.S. High Court Says.” While maybe we’re nitpicking, we do find that the word “must” to be used negatively in this instance.

Don’t agree with our take on Bloomberg Businessweek’s take? Let’s look at a few examples where the wording suggests that the writer isn’t exactly entirely unbiased:

“It will open a new front in the fight over gun rights, setting the stage for courtroom battles over the constitutionality of weapons restrictions around the country.”

Is it necessary to use the words “front” and “weapons?” While firearms can be weapons, so too could be a baseball bat or a kitchen knife. And the word “front” along with “battles” implies a hostile intent. But let’s also examine some other passages a bit more closely too:

“Chicago has been the only major U.S. city with a blanket prohibition on handguns. The ban was challenged by four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old homeowner in the Morgan Park neighborhood on the city’s South Side.
 
“McDonald, who says his home has been broken into at least three times, says he wants to keep a handgun by his bed for protection.”

What the author of this piece failed to mention is that Mr. McDonald actually shot an intruder into his home. As written, this piece offers McDonald’s statement as unsubstantiated. In fact, he’s been a victim who had to use a gun already in self-defense.

But the whole point of our post is that we see this type of just slightly anti-gun bias all too often in the mainstream media.