The Fourth Estate is the anti-gunners’ Fifth Column
January 1, 2010

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

During the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, the fascist leader Francisco Franco attacked the capital of Madrid with four columns of troops and a fifth of pro-fascist propagandists—many of them from the media of that time. That is the origin of the term “Fifth Column” used to describe the underhanded tricks of persuasion to gain victory.

Franco’s success was paralleled by the Nazi regime in Germany and the communist regime in Russia during the mid-1940s and ’50s.

It’s an old technique and one that is frequently employed by people trying to influence public policy or gain political power, especially when their supporters are in a minority, as is the case with the anti-gun movement in America and at the United Nations.

Of course, people in the media make the best “Fifth Columnists” and a large segment of the media—in print, broadcast and the Internet—has enrolled as propagandists for the anti-gunners. Lest I be accused of voicing another “right wing” rant, let me give you some recent examples of media support for the anti-gun cause.

For starters, here’s how Michael Daly, writing for New York City’s Daily News, dealt with the story of South Carolina’s second annual Thanksgiving weekend sales tax holiday on firearms purchases.

“The great state of South Carolina is putting its own sick twist on Black Friday with a tax holiday on firearm purchases. Not cars. Not clothes. Certainly not books,” Daly sneered.

“Just guns. For the 48 hours following Thanksgiving, gun buyers will enjoy a break of up to 9% in state and local taxes. Firearms traffickers are not expected to pass the savings on to New York criminals, but what is called ‘the extrava-gun-za’ and ‘Second Amendment Weekend’ is sure to help South Carolina stay among the top five states that provide 85% of the illegal handguns recovered in New York City.”

At about the same time in November, Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, writers for the San Francisco Chronicle discovered that months earlier California Attorney General Jerry Brown had filed a surprising brief on behalf of the plaintiffs to encourage the Supreme Court to grant a hearing to one of several challenges to Chicago’s gun laws that had been previously combined by the lower federal court. These included the NRA’s suit as well as the McDonald suit which included the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association as plaintiffs.

Brown’s (really California’s) amicus brief simply argued that SCOTUS should take up the issue and decide whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the states. One of his reasons was that California has no right to keep and bear arms amendment in its state constitution and a Supreme Court ruling would safeguard the rights of that state’s residents.

However, their story was headlined “Gun opponents up in arms as Jerry Brown aids NRA.”

“It may come as a surprise to many of his Democratic supporters, but Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Jerry Brown has gone to bat for the National Rifle Association,” they wrote, apparently using the NRA as a frightening bogeyman to so-called progressive Bay-area readers. (They like to call themselves “progressives” now, not “liberals.”)

In the end, SCOTUS did grant certiorari to a Chicago case, but it was not the one originated by NRA. Still, NRA has backed the case the court did decide to hear, a point that apparently eluded the Chronicle’s writers.

After briefly outlining the Heller decision and the purpose of the Chicago suit, the Chronicle people went on to cite not just Democrats but anti-gun Democrats in showing that Brown’s “stance has angered a number of gun control proponents.”

“Julie Leftwich, legal director of Legal Community Against Violence, said this isn’t simply about Brown defending the Second Amendment—it also marks a dramatic turnabout from the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Bill Lockyer, a staunch gun control advocate,” the Chronicle continued.

“Jerry Brown hasn’t shown leadership in the legislative arena related to the issue of gun violence prevention ... and he hasn’t sponsored or weighed in on any significant gun bills,” Leftwich told The Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci.

What the Chronicle called “Brown’s pro-gun stand,” has also left some San Francisco officials scratching their heads. They’re awaiting a ruling in the Chicago case to see how it might affect two local gun-rights lawsuits.

And here is how Gail Kerr dealt with a gun related court decision in The Nashville Tennessean. The newspaper had long campaigned against the state’s new law allowing people licensed to carry concealed to carry those guns with them for personal defense in restaurants that serve liquor. The legislature had passed the measure over a veto by the governor, and The Tennessean had flown the anti-gun banner throughout the capital face-off.

“That noise you heard Friday afternoon (Nov. 20) was the sound of celebratory cheers all over Nashville,” Kerr began in her commentary headlined “Guns-in-bars ruling is a win for tourism industry.”

“Score a big one for the home team,” she commented.

“The bill, opposed by most restaurant owners and the restaurant industry, and vetoed by Gov. Phil Bredesen, was the worst thing to happen to a tourist town since Prohibition. That it came during a deep recession added to the frustration.

“ ‘We’ve had individual visitors canceling their trips,’ said Butch Spyridon, president of the Nashville Convention & Visitors Bureau. ‘We got a lot of negative press internationally. When you are a city that leads the list of friendliest cities in the country, it was a tough message to overcome’,” Kerr quoted.

Then she recapped the history of the battle over the bill.

“ ‘It was almost worse than the law allowing it,’ Spyridon said. ‘It compounded the problem. I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, but guns and alcohol don’t mix. For an industry like us, you want and have to convey a safe environment.’ ”

“It remains to be seen if the state will appeal Bonnyman’s ruling. Either way, the legislature will undoubtedly take another crack at this in January,” Kerr continued, before concluding her commentary with another indication of her approval of the court’s action, calling it “Another item on the list of Thanksgiving blessings.”

As another example of the media’s fifth column role in promoting ever-more Draconian gun restrictions—sometimes subtly, sometimes with a sledge hammer—The Washington Post on Dec. 6 rushed to the side of New York City Mayor Bloomberg and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) by applauding their proposal to “deny weapons to possible terrorists.”

“Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of roughly 500 U.S. mayors, has been pushing for smart and sensible law enforcement solutions to reduce the number of illegal guns obtained by criminals or would-be criminals,” The Post began, and telegraphed their support by calling their anti-gun agenda “smart and sensible.” In the next sentence, The Post also praised the gun-grabbers when it continued with “Last month the mayors renewed their call for adoption of two relatively modest but potentially powerful proposals (italics my emphasis).

“The first aims to close the so-called ‘terror gap’ in existing gun laws by prohibiting any one on the country’s ‘no fly’ list from being allowed to purchase a gun. Such a prohibition would allow the FBI to stop ‘people who are too dangerous to get on a plane from buying guns and explosives,’ said New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a co-founder of the mayors group.”

And if any reader had not gotten the message that The Post was putting its stamp of approval on the legislation, the unsigned editorial continued with “This proposal is a no-brainer.”
Return to Archive Index