The Poverty of Australian Conservative Journalism By Peter Ewer
The differences in coverage of the Las Vegas shooting between Australian and American “conservative” journalists is stark. For example, Ann Coulter, who has published numerous best-selling books, said this:
“If the media are going to keep wailing about how vital a free press is, could they start reporting stuff?
There’s a remarkable number of dangling facts about Stephen Paddock’s mass murder in Las Vegas, which the media have shown little inclination to investigate. It’s almost as if they’re worried that too much investigation will ruin it.
Who was the woman shouting, “YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!” right before the concert? Is any reporter interested in finding out? Probably a random crazy lady, but that’s not typical pre-concert behavior.
Why is it taking so long to find out if anyone else went into Paddock’s hotel room since he checked in last Thursday? I’m perfectly prepared to accept that he was the only one who entered that room, but can we see the surveillance video?
The sum-total of the information we know about Marilou Danley, the woman who’s been living with Paddock for years is the following: She was out of the country at the time of the attack. She’s not involved.
Paddock had apparently assembled an enormous arsenal of weapons. Did she know about it? Did he tell her why? Had his behavior changed recently? Why wasn’t he with her on her trip? Had they broken up? And why did Paddock recently wire $100,000 to the Philippines?
Within hours of the first indictments in the Duke lacrosse case—later, all thrown out—the media was bristling with information about the players’ parents, the homes they grew up in, the ritziness of their neighborhoods, and the tuition at their Catholic high schools. Doesn’t any reporter want to ask Danley anything?”
In other words, what we see here is something lacking from Australian conservative journalism, at least in the mainstream press, good old fashion investigation and questioning, refusing to leave mysteries unsolved. A good journalist should be more like Sherlock Holmes, than an academic writer. Obviously, MSM journalists everywhere are lacking in this quality.
What we find when looking at the mainstream media coverage by so-called conservative journalists in Australian papers, is a cucked view of the Las Vegas shooting compared to the remarks by Coulter quoted above. Now, I don’t want to upset any one here who may love reading their favourite columnist, but the comments are superficial and amount to little more than gun banning propaganda.
Why should anyone have a gun? Why do civilians need guns? That begs the question about why anyone, including the Deep State needs a gun. The gun is a weapon which channels force, so the State has them for social control. But, what if the State goes evil, say, becomes Nazi and White supremacist? Wouldn’t the politically correct need guns to fight against the evil racists? How, hypothetically would the soft and flabby cucks in the media ultimately defend their multiracial migration creation from such evil, unless, as a final measure, force could be used?
So, the American justification in terms of preservation of liberty, has a politically correct analogue.
What then about the claim that no-one with a knife could have produced the damage done by Steven Paddock with gun fire, that guns are intrinsically more destructive that other possible weapons, including vehicles? The problem here is that the assumption is simply false. Paddock had explosives too, and explosives are many times more deadly than guns. Explosives are even more regulated than guns, yet such things are obtained illegally, and can be chemically constructed. Just ask the old IRA, and ISIS jihadists. I don’t want to give any ideas, but it is not hard to think of many other things far more deadly than firearms, which remain today, a fairly primitive weapon for mass murder.
Of course, the real agenda behind all of the media shock! horror! is to advance an argument for further gun control in Australia. This has already happened with the safe and security arrangements, but Malcolm Turnbull seems to be moving quickly to further gun control, not letting the momentum of the Las Vegas tragedy go to waste:
The aim seems to be to move on lever action shotguns, which the gun banners have had in their wonky sights for some time. There is no real difference between almost all of the Australian chattering class and someone like Michael Moore on this issue:
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? The gun banners only succeeded in Australia because of registration. But, the US does not have this, and there are 300 million legal guns out there in the public. There are estimates that there are more than that number in illegal guns. Home workshops that can manufacture guns are everywhere. So, how do you propose getting the banned guns into state control? It would require the armies of the US and China to go house-by-house and get the guns. Imagine the death toll that will come from this, and it will have to be done by New World Order goons with guns; it would be bad for capitalism to have to drop an Atomic bomb on a US city.
Think about it, oh bleeding heart pinkos. It would be more helpful if you came up with constructive solutions to America’s social problems, which cause gun crimes; after all, Switzerland is armed to the teeth with almost no gun crime, but Mexico has strict gun laws, and is virtually undergoing civil war. Why do you think this is? How odd that a group of so-called “thinkers’ who see everything else as a social construction, cannot lower themselves to see the social construction of gun violence?