The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence & Opus2 International are pleased to present:Truth Telling: The Media’s Role in the Conversation on Guns
OCTOBER 25, 2012 | 6 – 8:30 PM
UC Hastings College of the Law
Louis B. Mayer Lounge
198 McAllister Street | San FranciscoRSVP REQUIRED
Free to Members, UC Hastings Students and Faculty
$12 All Other Students | $20 Non-Members
The Law Center reserves the right to refuse admittance.
Following an hors d’oeuvres and wine reception, a diverse group of journalists from local and national news outlets will share their perspective on the role the media plays in the national conversation on guns, particularly in an election year.
As the “information age” has become incredibly fast-moving and complex, the media’s power to inform, educate, and persuade has also grown. Meanwhile, the topic of gun violence in America remains complicated and fueled by passionate beliefs from all sides.
What are some of the challenges journalists and news agencies face when trying to tell the truth about America’s gun laws? What impact does the national political debate have on the media’s approach to this issue? How is “new media” affecting the way in which this conversation is cultivated?
Please join us to find out the answers to these questions and more. Come and ask your own questions for our panelists!
JOINING THE PANEL:Unfortunately, the former LCAV really doesn't want to hear anything other than their version of "the truth" as told by sycophantic reporters.
MODERATED BY:
- MARK FOLLMAN, Senior Editor, Mother Jones
- KRIS HUNDLEY, Staff Writer, Tampa Bay Times
- BOB EGELKO, Staff Writer, San Francisco Chronicle
- SCOTT JOHNSON, Violence Reporting Fellow, The Oakland Tribune
- ABBY STERLING, Producer, CBS 5 San Francisco
RORY LITTLE, UC Hastings Professor of Law
Notice that little disclaimer about "the right to refuse admittance"? This means that if they know you are associated with gun rights you are to be excluded from their little soiree. They don't want their worldview tainted by dissenting questions.
Josh Berger, a director of the CalGuns Foundation, had purchased tickets to this event. You can guess what he had waiting in the mail for him when he returned from the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Orlando. It was not the tickets he had ordered but rather a refund of his money with the note below.
Truth telling is a joke when you are dealing with the gun prohibitionists. The only "truth" they want to hear is their own skewed version of it.
The First Amenement crowd strikes again.
ReplyDeleteDidn't you mean the Anti-1st Amendment crowd?
DeleteSeems to me that a 'debate' (or whatever they are claiming it is) with only one side being presented is simply propaganda...............
So he was denied access to a function held at a state school? I smell a lawsuit!
ReplyDeleteI wondered the same thing about being denied access to an event held on public property.
DeleteProbably could sue except that they will place it in the guise of a 'private function' - hence the admission charge. They can then claim that since they are charging they can control who attends.............might still be fun to sue them anyway - just to get their knickers in a knot.
DeleteThe "Media" and "Academia" are nothing more than closeted, and sometimes not so closeted promoters of Marxism at any cost. Just as long as it doesn't cost them anything and can be funded by public monies.
ReplyDeleteThis is simply a means of determining how they have to present whatever positions and arguments they devise, so that an ill educated public will accept their goals and objectives and will. It has never been about the truth. It has always been about their power and control of others which is why they lose when the issues are opening debated.
They learned very quickly to shut that down if they cannot control the participants and circumstances that will allow they and not their enemies (the American people, Constitution and Bill of Rights) to win.
they're going to have some cheese with their whine?
ReplyDeleteThey got any way to keep you off the sidewalks out front?
ReplyDeleteTruth Telling: The Media’s Role...is to Lie for the Greater Goodiness.
ReplyDeleteThe Media and Truth have been divorced for some time, and one of them has a drinking problem.
JOINING THE PANEL:
ReplyDeleteMARK FOLLMAN, Senior Editor, Mother Jones
KRIS HUNDLEY, Staff Writer, Tampa Bay Times
BOB EGELKO, Staff Writer, San Francisco Chronicle
SCOTT JOHNSON, Violence Reporting Fellow, The Oakland Tribune
ABBY STERLING, Producer, CBS 5 San Francisco
Mother Jones is an openly leftest rag, but the other members of the panel list news organizations as their bona fides. I suggest we contact their employers to determine if these "unbiased" news organizations approve of their employees using their reputation to promote an event that excludes opposing views while attempting to subvert our constitutional rights.
Any volunteers they don't have a record on?
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing such a great and interesting issue. More power to your site!
ReplyDeleteFrom Mark Winshel, To get some insight as what might have been the real cause of the GLF/ 101 Cal St incident (regarding the cause of that incident, I never believed the stories put out by Pettit & Martin and the CSB), type into Yahoo or Google the search terms "Popik" & "quite aggressive," & then see if an article comes up mentioning a law firm by the name of "Pettit, Evers & Martin," & which I believe was an earlier and/or "improved" name for "Pettit & Martin."
ReplyDeleteAnd then next type in the terms "Popik" & "Pettit & Martin," and then see if any resume type items come up that would seem to indicate that Susan Popik (sometimes she is also referred to as Sue Popik or Susan Marie Popik) might have possibly worked for P & M between about 1975 & 1981.
By the way, Susan Popik is a a graduate of Hastings Law School, & I believe also for decades has been extremely active in various organizations that are primarily composed of lawyers, so therefore ask Rory Little if he is very familiar with who she is.
As to how I even became aware of Popik, it was due to the fact that she was appointed by SF Superior Court to be the arbitrator in a lawsuit that resulted from the fact that organized crime kingpin M.L. "Larry The Liar - Arlington National Cemetery" Lawrence, & who was a close friend of Dianne Feinstein, Willie Brown, Shorenstein, the Aliotos, Bill Lockyer, Jerry Brown, John Burton, and Bill & Hillary Clinton, & in fact almost all of the big boys in Democratic Party politics in San Diego, SF, Sacramento, & Wash DC, was the primary owner of a huge office building in SF that was operated as a politically protected center for Mafia money laundering, trafficking in undocumented aliens, & conglomeration of asbestos violations.
The building also went up in flames in a multi million dollar fire at 3AM in the morning, in other words the standard time for organized crime arranged arson fires in office buildings, just before CAL OSHA was to do a followup & more thoro investigation into the building's many asbestos violations.
However since Lawrence was a close friend & associate of Feinstein & Willie Brown (to learn about just only one tenth of one percent of the sleaze, lies, & frauds that were Lawrence's life, look up his entry in Wikipedia under the name "M. Larry Lawrence"), so therefore there was no way on earth that the SFFD was going to do a real investigation as to the cause of that fire & then declare it was most likely caused by arson.
So instead SF city government did an "investigation" that was up to its usual "standards," & as it also did in the Hugues de la Plaza murder & other cases, & therefore declared the fire was caused by bad luck rather than arson.
What I have mentioned here is s not even the tip of the iceberg in regard to what I know about such subjects as: one, the type of operation P & M was; two, the "standards" of SF city government; three, the type of "investigations" SF does in politically sensitive cases (& P & M was one of the most politically connected law firms in SF); four, the "standards" of the legal profession (for instance, one of the dirty secrets of the legal profession is that lawyers have far & away the highest rates of alcoholism & drug addiction of any major profession, & it is also standard practice among lawyers who are drug addicts to embezzle the money of their clients & former clients, & to then become vicious & sadistic totally out of control wild animals when asked to return the money they stole); & five, the "standards" of the totally corrupt CSB.
So I will be providing tons more information, & in various forums, in the coming months.
From Mark Winshel, You might also want to ask Susan "The Truth" Popik why Chapman, Popik & White recently went out of business, in other words the law firm that she was a name and founding partner of. Since frankly the supposed reasons I read in regard to that really did not seem to make any sense (but we can elaborate much more on that in the future), or at least to my weak and tiny brain.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, you might want to ask Susan "The Truth" Popik whether fallout from the Timothy Gens case was at least one of the real major reasons that Chapman, Popik & White decided to go out of business.
And if you want to learn still more about her, you could contact US Senator Barbara Boxer, and who I suspect is probably very familiar with Susan "The Truth" Popik, and including since: one, Susan "The Truth" Popik has positions on abortion that are at least very similar to those of Boxer, and who is the most extreme fanatic in the entire US Senate as to being VERY VERY VERY pro choice on abortion; and two, Popik herself has been an extreme fanatic, and extremely involved, and including in lawsuits, on abortion issues.
In fact as far as Susan "The Truth" Popik and her position on the abortion issue, one of the most interesting things is that there is another lawyer with the same last name, in fact if I remember correctly her name is Jennifer Popik, who is also extremely active on the abortion issue, but who however has a position on abortion that is TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY opposite of that of Susan "The Truth" Popik.
And finally you might want to ask Susan "The Truth" Popik whether the rates of alcoholism and drug abuse in the Los Angeles area among lawyers, and especially in the Chino section, even begin to compare to the rates of alcoholism and drug abuse among San Francisco lawyers, and including since I have gotten the impression that the rates of alcoholism and drug abuse among San Francisco lawyers are far and away the highest of any major city, and which I suspect may have been at least a very major contributing factor as to what caused the Gian Luigi Ferri/ 101 California Street/ Pettit & Martin situation.
(NOTE: While extremely high rates of alcoholism has been a major problem in the legal profession for at least several decades, however starting a few decades ago, and I would estimate about 1980, the legal profession, and especially in San Francisco, beganto be almost totally taken over by drug addiction, and including to heroin and cocaine. However in the last few years lawyers have also become extremely heavy users of meth. So therefore if you want to risk destroying your health and/or your children's health, then rent or buy a house, an office,or an office building that was previously occupied by a lawyer or a law firm, and expecially by a San Francisco lawyer or law firm.)
From Mark Winshel, In the above entry in the second line of the next to last paragraph, I typed Chino when I should have typed Encino.
ReplyDeleteBut what do lawyers often do if the California State Bar decides to consider disciplining them for making a mistake, or even committing a major crime, and such as for instance embezzling tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars from a client or former client? Often the lawyer says he was only partially responsible for his criminal activities, since he was addicted to drugs, and the CSB, believe it or not, often at least partially accepts such a garbage argument as a legitimate extenuating circumstance.
In other words if laymen in their ordinary lives were allowed to use and get away with such garbage and nonsense "logic" and "reasoning," then if a driver got in a car while so drunk and/or full of drugs that he then fell asleep while driving and then killed a few people due to his car hitting some people, he could then expect to be successful by arguing that he was only partially responsible for the deaths he caused, since he had been too drunk and/or full of drugs to know what he had been doing.
In other words, and although they call it the legal profession, actually it is far more of a sleazy mafia than it is a legitimate profession, and including since the majority of lawyers are crooks, embezzlers, thieves, money launderers, professional pathological liars, alcoholics, and drug addicts, and the members of that mafia, and including the big boys who run the California State Bar, usually circle the wagons and protect each other, and especially if the lawyer who committed a major crime is a bigshot or politically connected.
While the CSB, and so as give some credibility to its PR that it is supposedly committed to protecting the public, does now and then discipline, and occasionally even disbar, some of the lower ranking and less politically connected lawyers, however in virtually all instances the higher ranking and more politically connected lawyers are almost totally immune from any serious discipline, and no matter how extreme their crimes. In other words the so called "legal profession," and especially in California, is far more of a club and a sleazy mafia than it is a legitimate profession.
And while there are some lawyers who are honest and decent, however they are in the minority.