“I appreciate the look into the topic and the in depth reporting on the issue. It was well made and it doss seem like the reporters make a genuine attempt to understand the viewpoints of the people they interview on the way to making their case. That said, it strikes me as less of a story intended to expose the radicals of one particular issue and more of a attempt to subtly push a particular point of view. I think you could have done a better job showing the views of supporters of 2nd Amendment who are more moderate and not radicals like the people this podcast focuses on. Without this angle, the reporting could be seen to paint nearly everyone who is pro-gun as a homogeneous group of white males who are all racial and religious extremist. This is simply not the case. By the end of the podcast it is clear that this is a hit piece designed to associate every gun owner and proponent of the 2nd Amendment with Waco, Ruby Ridge and The Oklahoma City Bombing. Views from people across the spectrum of gun policy, including conservative pro-gun views, would have done a better job at shining a light on the corruption and flaws of these radical groups. It would have also possibly stood a chance at changing the minds of some of the people who may be lured by these radical views. Instead it comes across in some parts of the podcast as though you are speaking absolute truth and there is no grey area or other valid opinions on the topic of gun control. So again, well made and researched. I think it important to expose corruption, con-men and radicals when you see them and you do that well here. That said, if you are going to lean to one side of the issue it would be helpful to have opinions to balance that, otherwise you risk hurting your credibility.”
RLJ2014 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
07/02/21