Without checking first…
Did the Navy Yard shooter use an automatic weapon?
Did he use an AR-15?
Did he try to buy one?
.
.
.
.
.
.
It’s my guess that many, if not most, people will be left with the impression that the answer to at least one of those questions is “yes.”
And I contend that the reason is, at least in part, the media’s desire to tie “assault rifles” to this shooting.
You don’t need to assume any malfeasance to have people misunderstand something. The ignorance of the population does not prove a media conspiracy.
Interesting. It never occurred to me that he might have HAD an AR-15 until the OP.
I am pretty “Left” but I do like facts. The answers are
No
No
No
I do believe that the “Media” has found an object to demonize, the AR-15, rather than deal with the much larger problem of the sad state of mental health care here in the US.
Capt
It was reported as such, once even reporting the shooter used an AR-15 shotgun, which of course doesn’t exist.
CNN also published an article where they took aim at the AR-15 even though the weapon used in the Navy Yard shootings was a Remington 870, one of the most commonly owned shotguns in the US and a weapon favored by Joe Biden himself.
Not a New York Times reader, I take it?
If you don’t mind my asking, from what news source(s) did you get you information on the event?
CNN making an error in reporting the news? I am absolutely shocked!
What evidence would?
How about this? On September 17th, the NYT ran a story claiming that Alexis tried to buy an AR-15 but was stymied because Virginia law prohibited out-of-state buyers from making such purchases.
How many days after being notified that this was factually untrue should we expect a correction? After how many days would you agree that something beyond misunderstanding was at work?
Without checking first I already know that the reports of him having an AR were wrong, but I was still under the impression that he tried to buy one.
What’s the debate?
The debate topic is typically the proposition that the OP contends to be correct.
In this case, I explicitly labeled it for your convenience:
What is “the media”?
I had heard that he’d been armed with a long gun, probably a shotgun, but had not been aware, as I stated above, that he might have had an AR-15, until this thread. What he carried out the deed with is of secondary importance to me to the deed itself.
Local news. No, I’m not a NY times reader.
It was for me as well. The importance of the rush to declare the AR-15 the weapon used, though, is that it wasn’t of secondary importance to everybody.
This should be your takeaway, Bricker.
I have been ‘the media’ as you are ‘the law’. I have both covered politics and owned media firms (two newspapers). The assumption of some grand ‘media conspiracy’ is bullshit and you’re old enough to know that. The need to connect poor coverage - done under tremendous stress at breakneck speed - to ones political opponents is prima facie evidence of arguing in bad faith no matter which side does it.
I contend that - given the available evidence - there is a great deal of misinformation published on any breaking story of enormous emotional weight. Instead of hoping to indict some conspiracy instead indict the attitude in the media that places too much emphasis on ‘being first’ rather than ‘being right’. The 24-hour news cycle allows for too little time and too much competition to allow for proper vetting of facts and leads us to hideous practices such as ‘unnamed sources’ or ‘some are saying’ or ‘speaking on condition of anonymity’ or even the horrid ‘just asking questions’.
Honestly, the asking of this question, in this way is nearly identical to the snap judgement based on political positions that you seem to enjoy pointing out to others.
Was it reported wrongly? Certainly. And those who did so should be ashamed.
Was it a conspiracy between the NYT, CNN et al? Bullshit.
Was it a sign of the collapse and ineffectiveness of for-profit American media? Damn straight. Standards have slipped since the growth of 24-hour news channels where yammering because more important than actual reporting.
Is trying to point to a media conspiracy a sign of insecurity in one’s own positions? Possibly.
“The media,” as I used the term, and as I dare say most every single person also does, was generally synonymous with the term Fourth Estate.
Now, as to “conspiracy.”
I didn’t use the term, despite your placing in quotes and discussing what I said. A conspiracy is an agreement. When actors are similarly motivated, they act similarly. No agreement is needed.
You inveigh against the 24 hour news cycle. But the example I have made involves an NYT article from the 17th. And a correction that wasn’t made in the 24 hours you mention. If the need for speed was so rampant, how do you explain that tortoise approach?
It was a secret military over/under version used for hunting quail and deer at the same time. Unfortunately they called it the queer gun and it was discontinued for politically correct reasons.
The primary reason “the media” make such mistakes is the competition. They have nothing to sell that the other guy doesn’t have except for more specific information, sooner. The competition is for eyeballs, which means money.
There is no advantage, none whatsoever, for them to alienate the ballistophiliac community.
What? Bias in the news? May Walter Cronkite strike you down for such a slanderous statement.