No, sensationalist mainstream media, Dana Loesch's NRA ad is not 'un-American'

Chris Pedigo, President of Digital Content Next — a group representing mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, Associated Press, BBC, and more — wrote a public letter to TheBlaze host and National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch about her viral ad where she lambasted the paper for its blatant bias, and less than truthful reporting.

In Loesch’s April ad, she puts the NYT on notice that America has had it with the paper disguising its partisan bent as centrist reporting, and using its platform to push lies.

“We’re going to laser-focus on your so-called honest pursuit of truth,” Loesch said in her video. “In short: We’re coming for you.”

The ad sent much of the leftist media into an uproar, claiming Loesch was inciting violence. Some even went so far as to say she was going to sexually assault journalists, claiming she said in the video that she was going to “fist” the New York Times when she actually said “fisk.”

By the way, “fisk” means “to refute or criticize (a journalistic article or blog) point by point” according to Dictionary.com.

In Pedigo’s letter, he white-knights on behalf of the Old Gray Lady, saying the language may incite violence against journalists. The DCN president also added that Loesch’s attack on the NYT was “un-American.”

“However, when you use such incendiary language as “we’re coming for you,” it is our right to suggest in the strongest terms that your behavior is blatantly irresponsible as it may incite violence against journalists. Ninety-nine people out of a hundred would interpret this language as threatening and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. Bottom line: It is un-American to threaten journalists.”

He even cattily tells Loesch to attend an upcoming “free press” event at D.C.’s Newseum to “can reacquaint yourself with the importance of a free press.” He then tells Loesch to stick to worrying about the Second Amendment, and let he and the mainstream media protect the First.

In Pedigo’s effort to seem like he’s taking a high road against Loesch’s video, he reveals some serious faults within today’s mainstream media.

Firstly, to suggest Loesch is inciting violence against journalists is sensationalism at its best. Loesch clearly states that the NRA’s attack on the NYT is purely on their partisan reporting, and that the NRA’s focus will be on dismantling the hard leftist narrative the paper has crafted for the world.

Pedigo suggesting Loesch is encouraging violence against journalists is purely a distraction tactic from the NRA’s point that the NYT are proven liars. Furthermore, it’s a weak attempt by Pedigo to paint the obviously guilty NYT as the victim in this situation.

At no point does Pedigo offer a rebuttal to the fact that the NYT is a spinner of false narratives; just that Loesch is saying scary words that could generate scary consequences.

The second point I’d like to bring up is Pedigo’s assertion that “Ninety-nine people out of a hundred” would take Loesch’s language as threatening, and his suggestion that disagreeing with that assertion would be “disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.”

I have to wonder what makes Pedigo believe that so many people would agree with his sensationalist take on Loesch’s video. Does Pedigo believe that 99 percent of people agree with his take? What about those who read the New York Times? What leads him to believe he can boldly declare that he, or anyone else, represents 99 percent of the people?

“We speak for you” is a consistent notion I see from progressive leftist groups, and the fact that we’re seeing it now by someone representing mainstream media outlets is troubling. It’s good evidence that Loesch’s claim is correct, and the mainstream media does have a clear bias to the left.

Just to be clear, Pedigo doesn’t speak for 99 people out of 100, and that same amount of people very likely do not agree with his assertion that Loesch is encouraging violence against journalists. If Pedigo can prove beyond a doubt that 99 percent of people agree with him on this issue, I’ll gladly retract my assertion.

Third — and to me the most troubling — is Pedigo’s claim that Loesch’s attack on the New York Times is “un-American.”

Where to begin?

To start, we know that Loesch wasn’t physically threatening any journalists — and as I said earlier — suggesting she was is sensationalism meant to make her into a violent monster, and the NYT into a poor victim only trying to do its job.

So I’m going to dismiss the suggestion that Loesch is going to lead a group of armed NRA members into the streets for a good ol’ journo-hunt out of hand. Instead, I’m going to address what you really mean when you say she’s threatening journalists — their ideologically slanted reporting.

Let’s be clear. Criticizing, disproving, and debating someone’s point isn’t un-American. Actually, it’s very American. Freedom of speech, dissenting opinion, and skeptic thought are so strongly a part of America’s belief system that the country’s founders made it the first item on a list of things the government can’t touch. The NRA’s focus on collapsing false narratives, and challenging blatant lies falls right in line with this country’s values.

It should also be noted that neither Loesch, nor the NRA are representatives of the U.S. government. Their attack on you is not a violation of your First Amendment rights, it’s an exercise of theirs as private citizens. They have no power to govern you, only plea their case in the court of public opinion which has been dominated by the ideological slant of the groups Pedigo represents for a very long time.

Lastly, I have to wonder if Pedigo thinks of himself and the organizations he represents so highly that he truly believes they are America. If attacks on these outlets and their narratives is “un-American,” then is Pedigo claiming that these news outlets represent the country itself? We know he claims 99 people out of 100 agree with him, so can we safely assume he believes the mainstream media is truly the representative of the United States of America?

I truly would like an answer from Pedigo, should he read this.

Until I get some answers, I can safely assume that Pedigo, the New York Times, the Washington Post, et al are truly oblivious as to who they are, what they represent, and who agrees with them.

The short answer is this. This group of mainstream media news outlets are demonstrably biased, proven drivers of falsehoods, and ideologically prejudiced. The only un-American thing I see in this entire situation is coming from the DCN and the mainstream media organizations he represents.