[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Modern day liberalism rests upon “feeling” over rational thought. While stats consistently show that people are safer as more and more firearms wind up in the hands of law-abiding citizens, liberals are often quick to cast such facts aside as mere hurdles to their emotional-driven agenda.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]Case-in-point: the Obama Administration has been forced to admit that they simply made-up their oh-so-scary (and fraudulent) narrative surrounding school shootings prior to the 2014 midterm elections.
According to a report from the Wall Street Journal:
Last September the Obama administration produced an FBI report that said mass shooting attacks and deaths were up sharply — by an average annual rate of about 16% between 2000 and 2013. Moreover, the problem was worsening. “The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents,” said the authors. “During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually.”
The White House could not possibly have been more pleased with the media reaction to these findings, which were prominently featured by the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, the Washington Post and other major outlets. The FBI report landed six weeks before the midterm elections, and the administration was hoping that the gun-control issue would help drive Democratic turnout.
But late last week, J. Pete Blair and M. Hunter Martaindale, two academics at Texas State University who co-authored the FBI report, acknowledged that “our data is imperfect.” They said that the news media “got it wrong” last year when they “mistakenly reported mass shootings were on the rise.”
Mind you, the authors did not issue this mea culpa in the major news outlets that supposedly misreported the original findings. Instead, the authors published it in ACJS Today, an academic journal published by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. “Because official data did not contain the information we needed, we had to develop our own,” wrote Messrs. Blair and Martaindale. “This required choices between various options with various strengths and weaknesses.” You don’t say.
John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center—who has studied FBI crime data for three decades—told me in an interview that the FBI report is better understood as a political document than as a work of serious social science. For example, the authors chose the year 2000 as their starting point “even though anyone who has studied these trends knows that 2000 and 2001 were unusually quiet and had few mass shootings.” Data going back to the mid-1970s is readily available but was ignored. How come? Over the past 40 years, there has been no statistically significant increase in mass shootings in the U.S.
Another problem with the study: The data used seemed selectively chosen to achieve certain results. The researchers somehow “missed 20 mass-shooting cases,” Mr. Lott said. “There’s one case where nine people were murdered. You just don’t miss that.” Also, the omissions helped create an “upward trend, because they were primarily missed at the beginning of the period.” This, he said, “is disturbing.”
[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”553157113d3ff”][vc_column_text]For those who may be confused, I’ll break it down: the Obama Administration selectively cherry-picked some instances of shootings, disregarded others, and rigged their data to indicate a rise in school shootings when there was no such rise.
Further, the propagandists refused to publicize their mealy-mouthed mea culpa with the same vigor with which they publicized their falsified findings.
This is more than an annoyance, but a serious breach of the public trust that must be highlighted and discussed by each and every media outlet.
Of course, in the absence of a legitimately fair mainstream media, such outing of these propagandists will fall to the alternative media.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]