Posted on Jan 19, 2016
Is Military Times being used as a propoganda piece in the Gun Control fight?
9.05K
23
21
5
5
0
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of veterans that want gun control. I am not one of them. I feel the laws are strict as it is. You do have to go through a background check, despite what some might lead you to believe, and I generally and truly believe only criminals pose a significant risk. Gun control won't stop them. Just my ability to defend myself against them.
Enter the recent column by former USMC SGT Matthew Hess, which has graced the front page of MilitaryTimes and the subsidiaries. The title is “Veterans should lead the push for more secure gun laws.”
To me, this reads more like a piece of propaganda than an actual bona fide opinion column. I have a sixth sense with these, given my time as a reporter for my college Newspaper. The article just seems "off".
The facts get even more interesting when you research who owns MilitaryTimes. Here you go: "TEGNA Inc., formerly Gannett Co., Inc., is comprised of a dynamic portfolio of media and digital businesses...Our agile and forward-thinking portfolio of television and digital businesses comprise one of the largest, most geographically diverse broadcasters in the U.S.
TEGNA Media includes 46 television stations... and represents the #1
NBC affiliate group, #1 CBS affiliate group and #4 ABC affiliate group
(excluding owner-operators)."
More research yields their allegiences and agendas.
So, to me it would seem there has been outside pressure to try and sway our opinion on this and other topics.
I am at the point where I view ArmyTimes and Military Times as a whole as more a mouthpiece for agenda than for Military news. In its current state, I am unlikely to renew.
Enter the recent column by former USMC SGT Matthew Hess, which has graced the front page of MilitaryTimes and the subsidiaries. The title is “Veterans should lead the push for more secure gun laws.”
To me, this reads more like a piece of propaganda than an actual bona fide opinion column. I have a sixth sense with these, given my time as a reporter for my college Newspaper. The article just seems "off".
The facts get even more interesting when you research who owns MilitaryTimes. Here you go: "TEGNA Inc., formerly Gannett Co., Inc., is comprised of a dynamic portfolio of media and digital businesses...Our agile and forward-thinking portfolio of television and digital businesses comprise one of the largest, most geographically diverse broadcasters in the U.S.
TEGNA Media includes 46 television stations... and represents the #1
NBC affiliate group, #1 CBS affiliate group and #4 ABC affiliate group
(excluding owner-operators)."
More research yields their allegiences and agendas.
So, to me it would seem there has been outside pressure to try and sway our opinion on this and other topics.
I am at the point where I view ArmyTimes and Military Times as a whole as more a mouthpiece for agenda than for Military news. In its current state, I am unlikely to renew.
2nd Amendment
Gun Control
Conspiracy Theories
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
The MIlitary Times (Marine/Navy/Army/Air Force) is owned by TEGNA as SGT Jerrold Pesz said, which is formerly the Gannett Co. If I'm not mistaken, they're holdings also include USA Today.
Remember they are not "affiliated" with the military. They "report on" the military, which is the origin of their name. They are as susceptable to bias an any Media (et al) organization.
When dealing with the Media, remember that we are not their Customer, we are their PRODUCT. Their customer is their Advertisers, to whom they are selling access to US. Generating conflict increases viewership, which generates more revenue. Selling papers is a means to an end. That allows them to make money from advertising.
Remember they are not "affiliated" with the military. They "report on" the military, which is the origin of their name. They are as susceptable to bias an any Media (et al) organization.
When dealing with the Media, remember that we are not their Customer, we are their PRODUCT. Their customer is their Advertisers, to whom they are selling access to US. Generating conflict increases viewership, which generates more revenue. Selling papers is a means to an end. That allows them to make money from advertising.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Gannett Co. (now TEGNA) owns all of the "newspapers" in this area and they are so far out left-wing that most people that I know quit reading them years ago. Absolutely nothing but liberal propaganda.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
A better question would be is there any part of the media other than explicitly conservative sources that isn't being used as a propaganda front for gun control and other things liberal and vetted by the AgitProp Committee of the Comintern?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
So if the Military Times was owned by Rupert Murdoch(Fox News owner) and they ran an opinion piece against any type of gun control, would that then make them unbiased and you would keep reading them? Or would they be just as biased, but since you agree with them you would no longer care about bias and keep your subscription?
Have we reached the point that if a paper or website provides tons of valuable information but publishes one opinion we don't agree with, that the paper must be labelled as propaganda and shunned? Is it really best to get "news" and opinions only from sources that exactly agree with everything we believe on every topic?
Have we reached the point that if a paper or website provides tons of valuable information but publishes one opinion we don't agree with, that the paper must be labelled as propaganda and shunned? Is it really best to get "news" and opinions only from sources that exactly agree with everything we believe on every topic?
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
As with any data source, both data and source should be vetted. The presence of truth is not itself a lack of agenda, nor is the presence of an agenda a falsifier, de facto. Even the Bible has an agenda, but that doesn't make it one bit untrue.
But if a source asserts things we know to be false, it calls into question the source's veracity on unknown matters, as well.
But if a source asserts things we know to be false, it calls into question the source's veracity on unknown matters, as well.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
As I can not read their articles on-line because I am not a subscriber.. I am not surprised that the time's (in whatever flavor) is being used for pushing gun control.
But the little bell goes off in my head on the advice from two Chief Master Sergeants and a Senior Master Sergeant... "don't rely on the Times for real news".. and that was told to me back in 1986!
But the little bell goes off in my head on the advice from two Chief Master Sergeants and a Senior Master Sergeant... "don't rely on the Times for real news".. and that was told to me back in 1986!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
All I can do is share a meme. I'm 100% against any kind of gun control, period. No matter what anyone else's agenda is against gun control, will not change my mind.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Honestly, I dont know why anyone would want one. Too expensive for the weapon and the permit. No place around here to fire one.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Agreed! I'm finding out the government can do anything they want, reasonably or not.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Hmm! The King Ranch. I'll bet they have one or used to when cattle rustlers were around.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google