Paging Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam
One of your fellow mayors against guns quit the group:
Jared Fuhriman, the mayor of Idaho Falls, has walked away from the coalition of mayors. He told a local newspaper that he was originally told that Bloomberg’s coalition was only going after “illegal guns.” But after doing his own research he said, “I could see there was a conflict with the NRA and with some of the beliefs we have here in Idaho.”
Well, Mr. Haslam, the research has been done for you. Yet you still belong to this anti-gun group. Not good for your future political aspirations in this state.
Update: A reader points out Haslam’s Wikipedia page which has links to my stuff and is a bit, err, biased. They also point out that Haslam’s people are quick to change it.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I’m not normally a Haslam advocate, but I really don’t think that entry is accurate or well backed-up. I personally don’t think that is a good wikipedia entry and would support it being taken down.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Incidentally, you should install the “subscribe to comments” plugin so we don’t have to keep clicking refresh, etc.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I’m not the one doing the wiki entry but, as yet, don’t see anything that is inaccurate.
Regarding subscribing, look up. It says:
click on RSS 2.0
January 16th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I know you’re not the one doing it.
It’s not so much inaccurate as it is a poor use of an encyclopedia. It’s being used not for facts but for politics and criticism. And it’s very biased; “exposed the fact,” “liberal big city mayors,” “continued failure,” etc etc.
If this were about a mayor who continually failed to join an anti gun group, you’d probably delete it yourself.
And it doesn’t help that it mostly cites you, and it uses your stories on MKS’s blog to look like it’s citing someone else – “Many Tennessee commentators” is you. You’re the only Tennessee commentator cited, but it cites you repeatedly and as if you’re more than one person.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Oh, and regarding the subscribe, yes, I suppose I could use RSS. But I don’t that often want to follow a particular discussion. Subscribing to a thread is much easier, and it only takes a minute for you to do it. Personally, I think it aids discussion. It’s your blog.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:04 am
If you click the RSS above, it subsribes to this thread only. If you click the one below, it’s for the blog. If you’re not talking about RSS, then I have no idea what you’re talking about.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Oh, and I concur that it is very biased but most of wikipedia is.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Sorry Jonathan but your concerns don’t ring true.
First, what facts are wrong? Sure I have some criticisms of the guy, but I presented the facts as they stand. If there are other facts, feel free to post them. As far as I know, (1) it is a controversy, (2) he did join the group, and (3) hasn’t put out any facts to counter the ones I presented.
Regarding the citations – Uncle is directly cited once.
His posts at KNS were cited two other times – not to look like someone else but (1) because they were different posts than what I found at his blog and (2) because I didn’t realize he did the “roundup” one (along with citations to Alphecca and an Idaho television station – not that anyone is counting).
But, to appease your non concerns, I changed the “Many Tennessee Commentators” cite to a Terry Frank (who I assume isn’t Says Uncle) post where she discusses a television roundtable on the issue and where all the participants (none of whom where Uncle but allof whome have some level of noteriety in East Tennessee reporting) agreed it would hurt Haslam in his effort to seek statewide office.
So, therefore there are two Uncle citations then – one to his blog (14% of cites) and one to KNS (14%) , two cites to Alphecca (28%), and a cite to Terry Frank(14%), Mayors Against Illegal Guns(14%), and an Idaho television station (14%). I could throw up others if you want to dilute the pool even more, but why bother. If 14% (or 28%) (or heck, even 42%) is mostly (as in, over 50%), then perhaps I need to take basic math again. Of course, thats all a red herring (not to mention pretty damn near applicable to nearly all stories in the MSM).
As far as “liberal big city mayors,” whats biased about that. Each of the three mentioned are big city mayors and self described liberals.
regarding “continued failure,” well, there has actually been a lot of talk about this and the Mayor has continually failed to withdraw from a group that stands directly at odds with other positions he has expressed. The fact that his people contacted Uncle and then failed to follow up at all further supports this.
and no one is harrassing anyone for not joining anything. The problem is that he went out of his way to associate with these people, who stand in direct opposition to Mayor Haslam’s expressed positions on the 2nd Amendment.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:35 am
countertop – if this article were written with all the same facts except it was about him not joining the group instead of being about him joining it, would you still think it’s not biased? Of course you wouldn’t. And you’re still using wikipedia as a tool for politics and criticism. In the very least, the whole mess about guns should be under a separate “controversy” section instead of acting like the whole career of Haslam has to do with this controversy, which is ridiculous since probably only a thousand people in the city know anything about it.
Uncle – I hadn’t noticed the two different comment feeds. My mistake. But fyi – I was talking about this plugin, which sends an email to you when someone else comments, like a forum would. I find that it aids discussion. I was just bringing it up as a suggestion, not a criticism.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:47 am
If he didn’t join the group I wouldn’t care. Heck, I don’t know or care if he’s an NRA member but if he made increasing gun control part of his election campaign strategy – and banked on it as necessary to carry him to higher office – then his NRA membership would be relevant.
Of course, no one would care if he didn’t join the group. The fact that he did – and that someone listed him as a likely candidate for Governor in the future – makes it an issue and a fact worthy of reporting.
If you think it needs to be under a seperate header, feel free to go and do so. I don’t (at least not in the state that his entry is right now). Of course, your right that maybe only a 1000 people now anything about the controversy, but then, I would doubt more than a 1000 people are going to his wikipedia page at all.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
So you’re still saying it’s not biased? My point was, you’d think it biased if the article talked about how he hadn’t joined an anti-gun control group, etc. You’d say it was another example of the liberal media. Yet you’re acting like this is not biased. I know wikipedia isn’t perfect, but I think we should do what we can to make it a useful and unbiased resource, not vice versa. And I don’t know the first thing about wikipedia editing, or I would put it under a separate heading, because that’s where it belongs.
And as for the “thousand people” remark, if you agree that so few people know about it, then the phrase “much local controversy” is inaccurate, and you’re also agreeing that BH’s entry shouldn’t consist almost entirely of this one relatively small controversy.
And fyi – I don’t care at all about the controversy or about the guns issue. I just don’t like to see this kind of ridiculous bias.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Hey Uncle – my comment got eaten. Thanks.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Uncle, Terry Frank, #9, B-Ho, Oatney, and others. How many is “many”? Do you suggest it should be “several”?
You seem to be bringing a semantic argument. Has Mayor Haslam discussed this at all? In any way?
Are you stating that there is not a controversy over Mayor Haslam joining this group Jonathan?
Unclear as to what your objective is here. For bias to exist only one side of the story would be presented. Since Mayor Haslam has given no response how can there be another side?
So if a politician doesn’t respond then a third party can declare bias?
Pretty slippery slope.
January 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I’m not normally a Haslam advocate, but I really don’t think that entry is accurate or well backed-up. I personally don’t think that is a good wikipedia entry and would support it being taken down.
It’s not a good entry. However, it’s very accurate. The two aren’t going to be mutually inclusive.
And fyi – I don’t care at all about the controversy or about the guns issue. I just don’t like to see this kind of ridiculous bias.
It’s not bias.
The Wikipedia entry isn’t very good, you’re right. But the problem isn’t bias, implying that there is a pro-and-con argument to anything/everything, it’s that that’s the entire content of the entry. It’s basically more of an entry on “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”.
January 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
In some ways it’s not exactly biased or incorrect as much as just poorly named. It’s not an entry on Bill Haslam, it’s an entry on a portion of Haslam’s career or even just on MAIG.
It’s like if you were to have an entry on Charles Lindbergh, but the entry only talked about Nazi sympathizing. Sure, Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer, but that’s only one part of his entry.
Not to compare Lindbergh and Haslam, but H isn’t just a mayor who’s a member of this group.
And maybe he didn’t present his side, but the language in the article is still skewed against him, like I pointed out above. It’s simply not an encyclopedia article on Haslam. There’s no sense of fairness or attempt at balance.
Oh, and SU – I tried using the RSS this time for the comment, but it doesn’t seem to be updating that well. *shrug*
January 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I agree wholeheartedly that it encompasses a disproportionate part of the Haslam entry.
However, thats the part I added cause thats the part I know.
Wikipedia, like others have stated, isn’t perfect. However, I haven’t done anything to prevent others from adding additional information on the mayor – and I am sure there is plenty of additional information. If you would like to add it, go ahead, but that in no way changes the truth of what I put up there.
January 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
and if you need instructions on how to edit an entry, shoot me an email..
January 16th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
As soon as I and a few others saw our city (I.F.) on the anti gun “Mayors” list alot of emails were sent to the city officials and Mr Furihman–I personnally never received any answers, but knowing that we are off the list is Greta news……
January 17th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Countertop, I have Mayor Haslam’s interview on Steve Gill’s show concerning his membership in Bloomberg’s group if you’re interested. It’s here: http://terryfrank.net/?p=947
January 17th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Countertop–ooops, wrong link: it’s this one: http://terryfrank.net/?p=905
January 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Cool.
Thanks Terry. I hadn’t seen that.
January 17th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Updated the Wikipedia entry.
January 17th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
What happened to the Gill interview on Wiki?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
[…] The vast majority of Americans don’t know what current gun control laws are. You remember the American Hunters and Shooters Association? They are an anti-gun group masquerading as a pro-gun group. Seems they’re now on board. I find this significant because mayor Haslam has indicated, the one time I’ve heard him actually address the issue, that being against illegal guns is reasonable. However, this organization doesn’t just target illegal guns. They advocate gun control. They are a gun control group who support ludicrous pipe dreams such as microstamping. They also want access to trace data for data mining purposes, which even the ATF has said does nothing to indicate criminal activity. And they oppose standards for revocation of federal firearms licenses. And you would think that a group concerned about illegal transfers of firearms would support modernizing that process. They do not. In short, their goal is to limit lawful access to weapons. And, of course, they’re trying to sue gun dealers out of business. One other mayor has left the group due to its anti-gun agenda. But Mayor Haslam continues his membership in an anti-gun group. […]