Moving left into the province of propagandists, the AP avoids the pesky issue of due process

More akin to being authoritarian propaganda, a media source ignores an important civil liberty while casting opinion as fact.

Trying to come up to speed on what is going on in the world each morning is quite often akin to the “kawoosh” seen in the Star Gate genre, with a sudden onrush of stories and opinion pieces cast as ‘fact checks’. It’s also important to stay out of any type of echo chamber on either side, thus we check what AllSides would consider to be ‘Centrist’:

A Center media bias rating does not always mean neutral, unbiased or reasonable, just as “far Left” and “far Right” do not always mean “extreme” or “unreasonable.” A Center bias rating simply means the source or writer rated does not predictably show opinions favoring either end of the political spectrum.

Please note that as they state in their FAQ, a centrist bias rating doesn’t mean neutral or unbiased, just that it supposedly doesn’t favor either side. The problem is the Associated Press has been moving inexorably left exemplified by two stories from this weekend.

Due process, what’s that?

In our first example, the esteemed Associated Press that labels itself as ‘independent’ produced a long piece on Gun Confiscation SWATing also known as ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation. With an almost tangential reference to the infringement on Constitutional rights several paragraphs in on the piece, and only casting it as the contention of other law enforcement leaders while ignoring the fact that laws for Involuntary Civil Commitment already exist:

Involuntary civil commitment

Involuntary civil commitment is the admission of individuals against their will into a mental health unit. Generally speaking, there are three reasons why an individual would be subject to involuntary civil commitment under modern statutes: mental illness, developmental disability, and substance addiction. In the case of mental illness, dangerousness to self or others defines the typical commitment standard, with almost all states construing the inability to provide for one’s basic needs as dangerousness to self. In terms of process, every state provides for a hearing, the right to counsel, and periodic judicial review, while most states have statutory quality standards for treatment and hospitalization environment.

Source: Ralph Reisner, Christopher Slobogin, and Arti Rai, Law and the Mental Health System: Civil and Criminal Aspects (2009), pp. 704-705.

[Emphasis added]

They avoid any real discussions on critical Constitutional principles such as due process [5th amendment], searches and seizure [4th amendment], private property rights and of course the 2nd amendment. They spend an inordinate amount of time in what could be characterized as a one-sided infomercial for the destruction of due process and gun confiscation.

The headline for the piece was a masterful casting as the destruction of civil Liberties as a ‘tool’, while hedging their bets on this ‘tools’ effectiveness: ‘Red flag laws’ offer tool for preventing some gun violence.

Note the use of the phrase ‘some gun violence’ as a subtle hint that other measures against the cause of liberty will be needed. Authoritarianism never sleeps in keeping people safe and enslaved.

Opinion as a ‘fact check’

Our second example of authoritarian media bias also does a masterful job subtly casting opinion as fact in one of the national socialist media’s interminable ‘fact check’ diatribes. Once again we turn to the ‘independent’ Associated Press with a piece entitled: AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s swerves on economy, guns and migrants .

We’ll leave some of their use of ‘Newspeak’ on the subject of illegal Invaders and other issues to emphasize this excerpt on the subject of ‘gun’ violence:

TRUMP: “I don’t want people to forget that this is a mental health problem. … Just remember this: Big mental problem, and we do have a lot of background checks right now.” — remarks Sunday to reporters in Morristown, New Jersey.

THE FACTS: He’s oversimplifying the role of mental illness in public mass shootings and playing down the ease with which Americans can get firearms.

Most people with mental illness are not violent and they are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators, according to mental health experts. They say that access to firearms actually is a big part of the problem.

[Emphasis added]

How are the terms ‘oversimplifying’ and ‘playing down’ even close to being statements of fact? What numerical values translate to ‘big part’? Does the staff at the ‘independent’ Associated Press know the difference between fact and opinion? For example, it is a fact of history that the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or ‘Nazi’ Party was in fact the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Whereas the descriptions layered on by the AP could hardly be considered factual in nature. As is usually the case, they couldn’t help themselves in also including a plug for the destruction of due process, touting something they would resist when it comes to their common sense civil liberties.

Their ‘FACT CHECK’ also included a push for Gun Confiscation SWATing, emphasizing the words of an executive of the American Psychological Association while forgetting the fact that media sources such as the ‘independent’ Associated Press contribute to the problem of Media Contagion.

The Bottom-Line: The equivalent to the media of ‘red flag’ gun confiscation

Since it’s been established that there is a direct connection between the mass murder tragedies and media coverage, would esteemed ‘independent’ sources such as the Associated Press agree to the ‘red flag’ gun confiscation equivalent for them: Prior Restraint?

They would most certainly object to the destruction of their civil liberties while they cheer for the same in the case of Gun Confiscation SWATing. Perhaps they need to understand that double standards are the grease that makes the slippery slope so dangerous. The whole point of the ‘first they came for..’ sentiment is that we who stand for freedom have to defend all aspects of liberty, Including the common sense civil right of self-defense.

Only defending one basic human right means that all the others will be soon swept away, with only one remaining on the chopping block.

Originally published on the NOQ Report