The BBC rushed to report the other day about the newly-released video game from the NRA, which encourages children to learn about target shooting.
National Rifle Association launches shooting game for mobiles
One can tell the perspective of the Beeboid who wrote this up right away from the opening lines. They tell you that the game has been approved for children as young as four right up front, as opposed to mentioning it later on after explaining what the game actually is, and the NRA’s goals for it, figuring this provides maximum shock value. It’s more important, apparently, than the fact that the NRA joined the chorus of those condemning violent video games. Which the BBC censored from the report even though they spent nearly half of it discussing the issue of violent video games. It’s the whole reason the NRA created the game in the first place. I mean, the BBC could have at least used this as an opportunity for an irony alert, right?
Oh, and this isn’t actually a new game rushed out in response to the tragedy of Sandy Hook, either. This is only a mobile/tablet app game, and is basically another version of a game the NRA put out for consoles and PC in 2006. I won’t say the BBC censored this information because I’m pretty sure they didn’t even know about it, and didn’t bother to do any research other than reading the Left-wing blogs and news reports where they usually get their ideas on how to report US issues.
The promotional blurb for the original game pretty much sums up the NRA’s reasoning for the new version:
Join the National Rifle Association for a different take on the first-person shooter. Members of the NRA gun club will wield more than 100 firearms, ranging from consumer guns to specialty and military firearms. But the difference is they’ll use ’em without any blood or violence.
The BBC left out the part where the whole point of this is to separate violence and killing from learning respect for the tools. That’s because the BBC sees this as a horrible brainwashing technique to encourage children to love guns. Two different perspectives, you say? Well, yes. That’s the point. The BBC is reporting from one perspective, and doesn’t allow other viewpoints to interfere with their angle. They even leave out key context which may distract from the story they want to tell. The fact that I don’t like the perspective they’re reporting is beside the point if they don’t provide balance. I want them to feature both sides, not just one. It’s a point lost on defenders of the indefensible (or they simply refuse to accept it), but I’m stating it nevertheless.
Interesting side note: the original game was rated “E-10” (everyone over age 10) by the industry’s rating board, while the current game was given the “4+” rating – by Apple. It’s an Apple app at the moment, not a regular video game release, so the ESRB isn’t involved. The BBC’s darling Apple says this is good for the kiddies, not the NRA. Instead of directing your hatred towards the NRA, you might instead want to condemn Apple for selling such a thing. The BBC doesn’t want to distract you from their agenda, though, so they leave out more key background context.
Personally, I don’t accept that games cause violence. There have been plenty of studies done over the years, and as a long-time gamer myself, I’ve never seen any evidence of it, either. Other than WWII games where there’s no choice, I prefer my violent video games to involve killing aliens, mutants, or zombies, but that’s just me. The NRA is just trying to find another excuse besides blaming guns for these mass murderers. But that doesn’t make it right for the BBC to censor key context, nor does it mean it’s okay for the BBC to report from only a single perspective. It may very well be mainstream British opinion on gun control, but then it’s biased reporting. If you want your opinion reflected in the BBC’s reporting, then fine. Just don’t claim the BBC is impartial and balanced.
Half the news brief is taken up with the defense of video games in general. One might interpret this as defending the NRA’s game. It’s really just part of the whole debate about government control over people’s behavior. VP Biden tried to put pressure on the video game industry, so the voices the BBC provides in defense of the industry concern that part of the story, and are not meant to be interpreted as the BBC providing a line of defense for the NRA’s game. In fact, the inclusion of the debate about violent video games can actually be seen as more evidence of opposition to it.
Both the original game and this new app are non-violent. No living thing is harmed, or even remotely threatened. It’s all target shooting – inanimate objects. The whole deal of violent video games is about actual physical violence against other living (or undead) things, not sterile target practice. I mean, as far as I can tell, the NRA game doesn’t even have human-shaped targets like some real-life ranges do. It’s no more violent than the archery target-shooting game in the Wii Sports package that little kids play. By following the brief, not quite whole, story of the game’s release with the noise about violent video games, the BBC is framing the game in the context of violence. The Beeboid who wrote this up sees it as violence. Again, that’s a perspective informed by their personal opinion on guns.
This is just one in a series of BBC reports on the gun control issue, and the bias is only going to get worse from here.
BBC 5 Live on tenterhooks this evening waiting for the word from Obama. Peter Alen ‘warns’ us He is about to speak.
Word to the wise BBC, He is not our President.
But HE has folk who has His back.
NewsBusters @newsbusters
Hyperbolic ABC Fumes Over ‘Vicious,’ ‘Harsh,’ ‘Personal’ NRA Ad Against Obama http://ow.ly/2uiCte
The NRA seems to me to have the kind of PR that could only be added to the BBC’s 147… and up their game… so I don’t see them as really that great a bunch either, but the notion of media by default circling wagons like this seems kind of creepy.
Meanwhile, Jamie…Quentin… any other little promos in the busy schedule when not making and going on the kind of vetted gushing shows that approves of violence so long as the targets are the ‘right’ ones?
The NRA ad attacks Obama’s hypocrisy. It states that Obama’s kids are protected by armed bodyguards while they are at school and it questions why he wants to treat everyone else’s kids differently with his proposed gun controls.
I think that’s fair comment, but of course in OBummer’s world, criticism of “The One” , however legitimate is “vile, cowardly and repugnant.”
He has to rule by dictat on this one, because even the Democrat leader of the Senate – a pro-gun rights Democrat, which the BBC doesn’t like to highlight – said that Congress isn’t going to ban guns or pass the other laws He wants.
Who cares about an inconvenient democratic process when He knows best, eh?
It’s a good advert that is bound to get lefty heads exploding; it is irrefutable.
Which is why the Alinsky tactics are being wielded with full force.
Anyone remember how the BBC went wild in their attacks on Sarah Palin after the Gifford shooting, the accusations based on the cross hairs target, and a HYS discussion which ran on and on with accusations that she was an accessory to homicide? The BBC at its lowest. Has the BBC reported on this sick game – shoot a member of the NRA?
http://www.examiner.com/article/unhinged-violent-online-game-lets-players-murder-nra-officials-by-shooting-them
Excellent point. Mark Mardell was one of those attempting to place blame on Palin for the massacre by yet another mentally ill person. Now here he is offering world opinion as one reason to obey the President’s new rules.
Many Americans may not be aware of it, but the scale of gun violence is one of the things that defines their country’s image abroad.
Many in Britain and elsewhere in Europe simply don’t understand America’s reluctance to impose more restrictions on firearms.
They regard the argument that more guns mean more safety as the politics of the madhouse.
Yeah, so what? Why should we care? Just because others have an opinion doesn’t make it valid. It’s a blind appeal to authority, one which speaks of the arrogance of Mardell and his colleagues. This is opinion-mongering, not journalism. Of course, that’s actually his job as a BBC titled “editor”: to provide opinion.
Anyway, he uses that magic “many” word. “Many believe…” = “I, left wing BBC journalist, think that….”
Who are the many? Who did the survey?
I don’t care what collective opinion he’s referring to. Mardell is saying that we should abandon our principles simply because it might make foreigners think better of us. Why should foreign opinions mean anything? What makes those opinions more valid than ours?
That’s pure Obama. Remember what He said about leaving on the aircon?
Obama genuinely believes that America will be less hated/more liked if it is less powerful, less successful, and less wealthy.
If someone tried that trick on me I’d say: “Where? When? Who are these ‘many’?” Of course there would be no answer.
He’s here to redeem us all! Can’t you see? If He transforms the US, He transforms the world! And He will be by-passing Congress and ruling by executive fiat. It’s benevolent dictator time.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the BBC criticize Obama in anyway, shape or form. It’s simply beyond belief. The constant gushing praise is becoming unbearable… I simply don’t know how they get away with it… and we’re having to fund it!
Katty Kay actually criticized Him on Twitter last week about the lack of women in His new Cabinet, but then went on MSNBC to strenuously defend Him on the same issue. And about three years ago, Justin Rowlett gently criticized Him for not pushing enough of the Watermelon agenda. But it was quiet, isolated to his blog, and that was the end of the matter.
They love His new rules for us, even though none of it would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre. The lunatic kid could have simply brought along a few more clips. The cops took 20 minutes to get there, so he could have used an old muzzle-loading percussion musket and still had plenty of time to kill everyone. This is all superficial political stuff, won’t save a single life. But it makes the President and His followers feel good because they get to stick it to their enemies and control our lives just that little bit more. The BBC loves it.
Sky News is just as blatant in its Obama worship. I think their U.S. reporter Dominic Waghorn is as bad as Fatty Mardell in his role as a conduit for White House spin.
Well, you don’t have to pay for Sky just to watch the BBC. But if you want to watch only Sky……
And Sky isn’t your official national broadcaster with a legacy of trust and deep cultural connection spanning generations, from whom the vast majority of the public get their news and information.
I fully agree, Dave. I think that it IS indicative of the way all of Britain’s mainstream media reports on Obama and his “government”. Even supposedly right wing newspapers (Daily Mail, Telegraph) sycophantically report the Democrat line on all things political in the U.S.
It seems, like the U.S. MSM, Obama has our own MSM bought and paid for.
And have you noticed how there are no cruel cartoons of him either, still less of Mrs O, which when you consider that she has chosen to be a pretty high profile first lady she should not be protected from!
Now that you mention it, the total absence of negative cartoons is shocking. Sure, there have been plenty from non-Left sources critical of His handling of the economy and debt and all that, but not a single one from the usual Leftoid suspects showing the President with drones, or criticizing Him about warmongering or anything of the sort.
Talking of Radio 5, I was driving home at about 18:40ish last night and they had what they described as a “conservative” radio host on from America to talk about dear leader and his gun control announcement.
But first we had someone to support and present to us the pro Obama line, then before we went to the radio host we had to have a tearful and distressing moment listening to the mother of the British boy that was killed at Sandy Hook, this to me was clearly designed to get people thinking emotionally and poison any points the radio host had to make.
Once we got to the host he made some good points even though he had to put up with the normal BBC tactic of interrupting the interviewee which he handed well be saying “ma’am you have asked me a question please let me answer you” and the normal belligerent attitude of the BBC presenter determined to have their point of view enforced and accepted as the gospel according to St’ Obama.
But the bit that got me was at the end after the interview had finished she repeated the “conservative” radio host part to witch Peter Allan gave a self satisfied laugh of some one that has just dealt with someone they feel superior to or that of an adult dismissing a small child before repeating the same “conservative” radio host and that really got my blood pressure spiking
The segment is available on the BBC iPlayer here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pw4rx/5_live_Drive_16_01_2013/ if you want to give it a listen go to 2hr 40min’s in to get the right part
I heard this one too, the disbelieving little chuckle from Peter Allen at the very concept of a conservative having his own radio show said it all.
Hi folks, could we please get an Open Thread? The bias has been appalling in all areas; I’m bursting at the seams!!
Compare and contrast: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337847/bullet-head-nra-video-game-released-andrew-johnson#
I do hope that dez and Albaman and Scott and any other lurking defenders of the indefensible are keeping an eye on BBC twitter feeds to catch them condemning this game the way they condemned Sarah Palin. Come on, guys and gals, get busy.
Typical liberal hypocrisy.
Obama has a permanent armed guard-his rules for the lower orders clearly are not meant to apply to HIM and his entourage.
For the NRA to be ticked off by the BBC types for bringing up this flagrant double standard, shows that they`re right to remind us all of the “rules for the plebs, as opposed to rules for the elite”….just trust them eh?
And no mention of Operation Fast and Furious eh?…where Obama deliberately let guns cross his border to end up in the hands of Mexican narco gangs, so he could shout loud for a guns ban in the States.
That these guns ended up killing US service personnel seems to be mere collateral damage as far as the BBC are concerned…for Obama is to be backed , come what may!
Don’t forget Obama’s Benghazi gun-running operation, channelling Libyan weapons to the jihadists in Syria. That went well didn’t it!
The Benghazi operation reminds me of a story I saw on another blog a couple of days ago, although I haven’t seen it repeated anywhere else in the Blogosphere. Perhaps Dave Preiser could provide any confirmation to the following:-
The senior officer “retired” by Obama immediately after the murder of the American ambassador on Sept 11, Admiral Lyons, last year has made allegations that the so called “attack” on the Benghazi diplomatic compound had been set up by “The One” and his advisers. Apparently this was going to be his much heralded “October Surprise” during the Presidential Election campaign. The plan was to connive with the jihadists receiving “Benghazi Fast & Furious” weapons to set up a fake kidnapping of the Ambassador.Obama was then supposed to ride to the rescue and trade off the “Blind Sheik” for the Ambassador.
The plot went pear-shaped when some U.S. Marines disobeyed orders and went to rescue the hostages. The kidnappers thought that the U.S. had double-crossed them and so murdered Ambassador Stephens in retribution.
I don’t know if this is just another conspiracy theory, but it does make sense of the withdrawal of diplomatic security and the order for troops to stand down instead of going the rescue the hostages.
Dave, can you make any sense of the Admiral’s allegations?
No, I cannot. I generally try not to ascribe to malfeasance what is most likely due to incompetence. I don’t think the President and His minions are that clever. They tend to react to crises and attempt to exploit them for political purposes rather than plan them in order to take advantage. Fast & Furious is an exception, sort of, because that’s a case where they thought they could take advantage of something already in place to create an exploitable body count over time. Not really an immediate crisis created out of whole cloth.
Nothing about the attack on the compound adds up to anything remotely like a possibility for a calm kidnapping to be negotiated later. The place was already doomed when the marines disobeyed orders.
There was something else going on there which caused the military and State Dept. to deny help and deliberately allow those people to die. There’s definitely something being covered up, but this isn’t it. My money is more on a CIA weapons and gun-running scheme to arm Syrian rebels, a modern-day Iran-Contra, and His direct order to let the Ambassador die rather than compromise it. I’m pretty sure Adm Lyons was talking about that rather than some other scenario. The President and His minions thought they’d get away with it, and they mostly have, thanks to a compliant media.
I HATE “The View”. Hate it!. However Dr Michael Welner was on the other week trying to talk some sense to the dreadful women who preside over the show. Listen to what he says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmmWzRzaYFw
A note or two: so invested are Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg in the Democratic anti-gun argument (they are both up the Emperor’s arse) they try to derail his statement. Watch the in longshot at how Whoopi keeps engaging the audience with a quizzical look in order to undermine the Dr’s statement. But frankly this is the most sensible exposition I have heard to date of the mass killing syndrome. However, which brave politician is going to curb the media. “Not I”, says the One. “The media is my power base.” But Rahm Emanuel so memorably said, “never let a crisis go to waste.”