CNN reports 2nd Amendment poll results

[Bodacious]

There are also a lot of people who compromise on their principles. A person could be pro-2A, but because thier beliefs are more inline with someone who is Anti-2A they will vote for them instead.

[bpet]

I know that things change but what happened to the earlier CNN poll that was discussed on this forum where 99% of the responders interpreted the 2nd to give rights to "individuals"?

Big difference between a voluntarily web poll, versus a scientific poll of a random sample.

Agree and the results seem to bear this out. Just makes me wonder what the purpose of the web poll was?

I guess that those who do polls have a reason to do "unscientific" polls even though they may have a 25% error. Seems like a waste of time to me unless they are using it as a filter to determine if they want to go to the trouble of doing a "scientific" poll.

Wonder if the "scientific" poll would have been conducted if the informal results were closer to 50/50 or even reversed with only 1% thinking that 2A was an individual right.

I guess I don't understand the logic. If CNN is anti gun, you would think they would drop it after the web poll and simply claim unscientific results are meaningless. Instead, they conducted a scientific poll that shows overwehlming support for individual rights with a +-3% accuracy.

I welcome any help in understanding the logic. Are they really not as anti as I believe they are; or are they smarter than I give them credit for.

Of course, there's a third possibility - They are purely a factual, unbiased source for news. Any takers?

[seamusTX]

I guess I don't understand the logic. If CNN is anti gun, ...

I welcome any help in understanding the logic. Are they really not as anti as I believe they are; or are they smarter than I give them credit for.

Of course, there's a third possibility - They are purely a factual, unbiased source for news. Any takers?

I should know better, but I never learn.

I saw this piece on TV. I thought it was as even-handed as TV gets be on this issue. They interviewed serveral pro-RKBA people, and they didn't try to make them look like nuts or rednecks.

I have no idea what kind of internal politics went on in the production of this story. There are pro-RKBA people in the media, believe it or not (John Stossel is probably the most prominent example). Perhaps one of them "sold" this story to the producers.

One other thing that I need to get off my chest: CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner. Time-Warner is a publicly owned corporation. The only "agenda" it has is making a profit. If they think showing people sensationalistic news will make a profit, that's what they do.

Individual reporters, editors, and producers can be and often are biased and ill-informed (the two tend to go together), but I don't think there's a daily memo to run anti-RKBA stories.

- Jim

[bpet]

seamusTX wrote:

"...CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner. Time-Warner is a publicly owned corporation. The only "agenda" it has is making a profit. If they think showing people sensationalistic news will make a profit, that's what they do.

Individual reporters, editors, and producers can be and often are biased and ill-informed (the two tend to go together), but I don't think there's a daily memo to run anti-RKBA stories."

Whoa! No fair, that's a fourth option I hadn't considered.

Let's see, CNN is a money grubbing, greedy, free enterprise supporting, organization being run to make it's shareholders a fair profit and is forced to deal with the inevitable left wing, liberal anti-RKBA employees as best they can with their always overworked editors.

I can live with that!

I may have to give them another chance and change the channel off of Fox News once in a while.

Thanks Jim