Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
I tend to think most citizens are clueless on Court decisions as well, in that they tend to read them too broadly. I often wonder why media outlets (especially newspapers) don't have an attorney correspondent (or someone else knowledgeable on the law) who can parse through these opinions and write a piece that lays out the essential elements, in a sort of "What does it mean for the future" way. From the abortion decisions in Roe and Casey to cases like Heller, it might not be a bad idea.
I'm guessing you're going to see anti-gun activitists on TV, yelling in all sorts of ways about how terrible the decision is, without looking at the exceptions carved out by the Court.
I just wonder why media outlets don't have a more effective way to take these opinions and communicate them to their viewers/readers/listeners in a way that provides insight.
|
The media's job isn't to educate.
Every news source today has said "the Supreme Court upholds the right to bear arms" and gave a quick shpill. Then they went on to discuss the vote and how this is "good news for gun rights advocates."
For people who don't require more info than that, they won't read the decision (not even a little bit) and all they will know is that the right to bear arms was upheld.