It is no secret that in today's society, the media twists and alters information to use it to their advantage when reporting it to the public. The case of the Oregon militia is no different. Throughout the entire span of the incident being reported, the media has constantly misrepresented the militia's position as a whole, and misrepresented the people that the militia is made up of. The media has painted them as "heathens" and "terrorists", while the militia in reality is a group of people that are exericsing their first amendments rights to protest, and to assembly.
As well as the entire remainder of the Constitution. They are phony patriots. The Second Amendment was made to answer the challenge to the new nation by Shay and the Whiskey Rebellion. The line "security of a free state" is overlooked. Also overlooked is that the 2nd is a statement of states' rights. This is the doctrine that had been followed since 1789. The 2nd was an attempt to formally put it on the books. It was clarified by SCOTUS in US v. Miller. The states have sovereignty and are guaranteed the right to protect themselves from armed insurrection. That is what the Second has always meant. It was never individual ownership. Individual ownership was more or less assumed and the Federal government was not interested in regulating that. The purpose of the state is defense, so people make it the business of the state when they begin shooting people. Or menacing people with guns, or marching against the Federal government.
Oregon's militia is not misrepresented in the press. As a matter of fact, they are given too much leeway due to their white privilege. If they were non-white, they would have been dead already. I think the whole thing is foolish and should be dealt with as soon as possible.
It seems like the two main points are that they are protesting the Hammonds' prosecution and the federal government taking too much land. These two points are somewhat related. I think that different news outlets and news stories stressed different aspects of these points, and that may have caused some initial confusion.
I don't believe the Militia's position is misrepresented. I have read and reviewed stories about this from top news agencies, all having various news reporters on the scene. The reporters are interviewing the Bundy family (they are holding up the land), as well as interviewing government officials, local residents and supporters of the Militia, as well as those against. Just because they are not receiving 24 hour press, does NOT mean they are misrepresented, nor that their values are different. If there is misrepresentation, it must be from a media outlet without top quality journalists and active research reporters