Rather Poorly Regulated
Picture by Gage Skidmore
The uninitiated might be forgiven for thinking NRATV is the name of a soap opera or reality show. Like sand through the hourglass, the soap opera that the National Rifle Association has turned into lately continues to churn.
The N.R.A. on Tuesday also severed all business with its estranged advertising firm, Ackerman McQueen, which operates NRATV, the N.R.A.’s live broadcasting media arm, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The New York Times.
While NRATV may continue to air past content, its live broadcasting will end and its on-air personalities — Ackerman employees including Dana Loesch — will no longer be the public faces of the N.R.A. It remained unclear whether the N.R.A. might try to hire some of those employees, but there was no indication it was negotiating to do so.
The move comes amid a flurry of lawsuits between the N.R.A. and Ackerman, and increasing acrimony that surfaced after two prominent N.R.A. board members first criticized NRATV in an article in The Times in March. The separation had become inevitable: The two sides said last month that they were ending their three-decade-plus partnership.
“Many members expressed concern about the messaging on NRATV becoming too far removed from our core mission: defending the Second Amendment,” Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s longtime chief executive, wrote in a message to members that was expected to be sent out by Wednesday. “So, after careful consideration, I am announcing that starting today, we are undergoing a significant change in our communications strategy. We are no longer airing ‘live TV’ programming.”
By “members expressed” what he really meant was the NRA faithful isn’t kicking up enough to fund the organizations eye-popping layouts for elections, ever-increasing office space and executive overhead, Wayne Lapierre’s travel and wardrobe, and their new foray into opinion media. This was wholly predictable, since although they are the most prominent 2A advocacy organization, the NRA only represents a fraction of the country’s gun owners. Not long ago, the NRA was still a bipartisan organization. No more, and their sallying forth as bannermen for all things President Trump has not helped expand the membership. The drip, drip, drip of financial and personal news leaking and being reported on from the NRA suggests this is going to get much worse for the organization before it gets better.
This has been a long time coming. I hope the NRA pulls it together and refocuses on the core mission, but first it has to clean house.Report
So, their own stated core mission is “defense of Second Amendment rights”. Which they have pursued by supporting politicians who will pass/oppose legislation appropriately, and nominate/approve judges who will take an expansionist view of those rights.
When the Gang of Four was turning Colorado’s suburbs purple and then blue, the strategy was to elect Democrats, period. They might not support the Gang’s pet policies at first, but they could be convinced, or at least bargained with (vote for LGBT rights and we’ll move the environmental bills you favor). The NRA seems to have adopted a similar strategy of electing Republicans, period. They might not support expanded gun rights, but they can be convinced or bargained with.
How much more focused on the core mission could they be?Report
But they aren’t really focused on the core mission these days.
It used to be that they supported politicians who supported gun rights. The reality on the ground was that they would support more Rs than Ds, but there were still a number of Blue Dogs on the roster.
These days, they are simply supporting the GOP party itself, going so far as to voice opinions and support for GOP planks that have nothing to do with gun rights. This turns off a lot of liberals who support gun rights. It also damages the NRAs ability to influence Blue Dogs and other Ds because a great many of those politicians are no longer depending on the NRA voter to get elected, so they don’t really have any fear of the NRA campaigns against them.Report
How many Blue Dogs are left though? After the night of the long knives in 2010, they (and me, as I was one) went the way fo the Dodo. And the current iteration of the Dem party is pretty adamantly anti-gun rights. So, much like Planned Parenthood is a creature of the left at this point, the NRA is solely a creature of the right.
With Dem politicians who once supported gun-rights now backing the party line (looking directly at Kristen Gillibrand here), I think they made the logical choice. I know that this is hard for us in the vast middle, but as far as I can see, thems the facts on the ground.Report
SchadenfreudeReport
There is going to be drama.
(Personally, I’ve preferred the JPFO to the NRA for at least a decade.)Report
What starts as a cause, becomes a business, ends up a racket.
The NRA was hit pretty hard after the Assault Weapons bill during the nineties and had to really change its message in the wake of that monstrosity. Its members were not happy in the slightest at the compromises and failures of that time. I remember this pretty well, as my father is a lifetime member and board voter. It allowed space for other groups like the far more strident GOA and Second Amendment Foundation to come along, as this is what the voting and donating members actually wanted. Like many organizations, the message they started with, hunter safety and such, is not what they feel they need to support. And while those outside the group may lament this, so it goes. They aren’t voting members.
If they can pull it together and get back on the right track, good for them. If not, well, they deserve the same fate at the SPLC. If the people of the left hate them, it matters not. As long as their base supports them, they are not doing badly. Personally, I put them in the same spot as the above mentioned Planned Parenthood. I am not going to join or donate, but I am glad they are out there.Report