How to fix the f*cked up gun "debate" that's killing our kids
We don't have to talk like this.
I’m briefly coming out of vacation mode to re-up this piece for anyone that needs it. Please like and share this post if it’s meaningful to you so that others can find it. TY!
A quick reminder that we are about to wrap up a summer discount on annual subscriptions for $39.50 (that’s only $3.29 a month!). Discount ends after this week.
Paid subscribers get access to all our essays and interviews and perks like book club, and also pay us for our work—which is very appreciated!
Allison and I have spent years working in newsrooms and teaching college journalism and writing. I worked for years as a full-time journalist, and I teach writing and research as a uni prof. Allison is Associate Dean of the journalism school at CUNY, and formerly worked for the Wall Street Journal and WNYC.
We have spent our careers working in journalism and writing stories, and teaching college students how to do that, too.
So when we were met with another national gun violence tragedy this week, like a lot of you I felt anguish and grief.
And then I waited for another familiar feeling, too. The conversation during and after these events always feels infuriating and seems to go nowhere.
As a parent and human being, I find myself mad and frustrated at politicians, mad and frustrated at people I know (and people that I don’t know) making comments on social media, and frustrated at myself for not knowing what to DO about it.
As a journalist and writing prof, I realized that one thing that I do know are the basics of how to responsibly research and report stories. This is something that I teach my students all the time. And I can say with confidence that the conversation we are having around gun violence is deeply flawed and messed up.
So this week, I thought one thing that I can do is break down why the conversation around gun violence is f*cked up and frustrating—and just downright heart-rending—and what we can do about it.
Neutrality Bias, “False Balance,” and “Bothsides-ing”
If the gun violence conversation feels upside down, it’s because we have been flooded with myths and stories around gun violence that aren’t based in evidence, that blur the facts, and that point us away from solutions. These myths and misdirections have been mostly created by the NRA, and are pushed by those that benefit from keeping gun sales sky-high, and benefit from keeping us in a state of domestic terrorism.
It feels awful. And we are suffering terribly for it.
There are clear, evidence-based solutions to gun violence that have been proven to work. And they can work relatively quickly. But those evidence-based arguments are overshadowed and stalled by non-evidence based arguments that are designed to keep us going in circles.
There’s a name for this that I recently learned that’s incredibly helpful: it’s called “Neutrality Bias.”
The News Literacy Project defines neutrality bias as a type of bias that happens when a news outlet or individual tries so hard to avoid appearing biased that the way they discuss the issue actually misrepresents and warps the facts.
This is also called “false balance” and “bothsides-ism.”
Neutrality bias is sometimes used unconsciously in a misguided attempt to be “balanced.” But sometimes it’s used to deliberately obscure or bury information to benefit certain groups or pander to certain audiences.
Either way, it’s harmful and irresponsible.
If a media outlet is pandering to a particular party that believes the Earth is flat, or that climate change is fake, for example—they irresponsibly platform that view to pander to that audience. By doing so, they warp the conversation and public understanding of that issue.
But isn’t it good to be objective, you might ask? Objectivity is great. But neutrality is NOT the same thing as objectivity.
Objectivity refers to sifting through evidence and facts and seeking verifiable and reasonable conclusions—and being open to changing your mind based on the strength of the evidence that you gather.
Neutrality, on the other hand, purports to be “balanced” by presenting all views, regardless of their merit or strength, and treating them as equal. This gives space and airtime to non-factual and non-evidence-based ideas—also known as nonsense and absolute bullshit.
New to MR? Hello! You’re joining thousands that read MR every month. You can subscribe to get essays like this every week, below:
When teaching this to students, it’s pretty easy to see how neutrality bias is problematic. They get good at picking up when arguments are B.S. while they are researching “both sides,” (pro tip: there are usually many sides to nuanced arguments, not just two!) Their job is to investigate which arguments really hold merit and why, and discard or call out those that don’t. This is objectivity.
The fact that we don’t hold our politicians, media, and public discourse to the same standard as college students is bananas, and it’s getting people killed.
A student paper that gives equal space and weight to an unsupported “flat earth” argument, for example, as it does to an astrophysicist from NASA, would get an F. No credible journalism program would publish it even in the school paper. The same goes for a climate denier versus an expert on how to reduce carbon emissions. But that is essentially a version of what happens a lot in our media. And when it happens in media, it happens in our water cooler and dinner table conversations, too.
Here are some examples of what neutrality bias B.S. looks like right now in the U.S. gun violence conversation, where evidence-based arguments and non-evidence based arguments (ahem, bullshit arguments) are given equal space and weight:
Using an objectivity approach, there is clear evidence that banning assault weapons and instituting background checks can dramatically reduce mass shootings and their impact. This has been shown through peer-reviewed data and research, as well as in manifold examples from other countries and within the U.S.
For example: In Australia, a 1996 mass shooting prompted mandatory gun buybacks. The rate of mass shootings plummeted from every 18 months to so far only one in 26 years (One!! in 26 years!!)
California laws strictly prohibited assault weapons in the 90’s, and its rate of mass shootings fell 55%. California’s gun death rate is 37% lower than the national average.
These examples are confirmed by piles of studies that show that when countries tighten gun control laws, there are fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, which leads to less gun violence and fewer mass shootings (for more of my sources, see the end of this article). This should seem obvious! Not hard to get!
And yet, after last week’s tragedy everyone from the media to popular social media personalities gave air to NRA-invented horseshite non-evidence based arguments, many of which are not even actionable solutions, but are devised to merely keep us stuck in the status quo. (Also known as “deflections!”).
For example, we keep hearing false claims that arming teachers can keep schools safe, even though evidence shows plainly shows that practice is dangerous, and all credible experts including our own law enforcement agencies are heavily against it.
We also hear non-actionable “do nothing” arguments that merely keep up us stuck in the status quo, such as “fixing the family,” and treating mental health. (Meanwhile—the pro-NRA Republican Party is cutting family supports and mental health programs—almost like their plan is just to keep us dying from gun terrorism ad infinitum!)
And while the mental health crisis is a worthy cause of its own, so, so much evidence shows that mental illness is not the cause of gun violence. The United States has similar rates of mental illness to other countries, but much higher rates of gun violence due to gun access. (And these arguments only serve to endanger people with mental illness and make people afraid of them, when in fact they are vulnerable and often need protecting themselves.)
It turns out everywhere has mental illness—but only the U.S. makes it easy for mentally ill people to get guns! Take guns away and guess what—no matter what is going on in anyone’s brain, people don’t get shot. Problem solved. NOT HARD.
Of course, the politicians who receive millions from the NRA and their lobbyists make these bad—nay, disgusting— arguments. But it’s really nauseating to see the talking points that are crafted by the NRA given space in the media. And then see the gun lobby’s arguments disseminate into conversations with our friends and family, and into laws (or lack of them) that are literally killing children.
We feel sick about this because lives are on the line, and we should feel sick about it. The conversation itself is damaging because it creates confusion and leads us away from critical life-saving solutions.
This is immoral. This is evil.
And this is why I argue that neutrality bias B.S. is such a big problem. It makes us feel sick and dispirited in our hearts and in our guts. I believe this is because neutrality bias isn’t just flawed or bad faith discussion; it’s actually dehumanizing.
When a discussion or line of argumentation starts to make you feel sick to your stomach, or feels abhorrent, it’s often because one group is being dehumanized in that conversation. That feels wrong when we encounter it.
For example: In the gun violence conversation, we often hear questions framed like this: “Which is more important—school safety or access to gun ownership?”
Questions like this present children’s lives as equal to or lesser than another person’s choice to own military-grade weapons. The question itself is abhorrent and dehumanizing. This is not okay.
Dehumanization happens when arguments prioritize one group’s preference, comfort, or interpretation of law as equal to or greater than another group’s safety, lives, or human rights.
Once you start to look for it, you will notice “neutral” arguments that are actually dehumanizing in conversations around gun violence, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ and trans rights, race, abortion, and other issues. Jessica Valenti just wrote this week about how “bothsidesing” and “presenting diverse viewpoints” leads to dehumanizing and misogynistic segments like one on CNN last week in which Christian Nationalists were platformed to argue whether women should be allowed to vote.
“CNN treated these men as serious people worthy of serious questions, hand-delivering them legitimacy in the process. By running the segment, CNN not only sent the message that these misogynists are worth hearing out—but that stripping women of their right to vote is an idea worthy of discussion and debate.”
The way that we talk about things matters, and we can re-frame these conversations. We can become better receivers of information, and we can demand better from our public discourse.
We can call out neutrality bias and “bothesidesing” BS when we see them from politicians, journalists and even the influencers that we follow. We can point out dehumanizing conversations with our community and family and friends.
As Jessica Valenti wrote, many men in power think that nebulous thought experiments about “public discourse” are far more valuable than people’s freedom and their actual lives. Or they think that we can be tricked into thinking that’s the case. But we don’t have to put up with these losers’ bullshit.
We don’t have to abide conversations that put children’s lives—or anyone’s lives—up for debate. And we shouldn’t.
If you like what you read, please give this piece a “heart” and a comment to help our writing find new readers. Thank you for supporting my work!
We are about to wrap up a summer discount on annual subscriptions for $39.50 (that’s only $3.29 a month!). Paid subscribers get access to all our content and also pay us for our work—which is very appreciated!
September book club note: September’s book club selection is “Animal Instinct” by Amy Shearn. Join us to discuss on September 28th on Zoom. Nancy Reddy, author of The Good Mother Myth and Write More, Be Less Careful will be joining us for this discussion! (I’m already halfway through Animal Instinct, and I’m obsessed!) Book club is open to paying members at level.
This idea of neutrality bias is so helpful because it is so pervasive in reporting on tragedies of all kinds. This reporting is so dangerous because it elevates perspectives and ideas that sow seeds of doubt in the evidenced-based solutions that exist to national crises, like gun violence. I have to say, I am also sick of “human interest” stories that follow these tragedies — I do not want to hear about how older children protected younger children. I want to hear about the profits gun companies make off the sales of these weapons. And about all the legislation that’s been squashed by powerful gun lobbyists. That would help me understand what’s really happening in the world.
This was fantastic and so helpful. Thank you!