When it comes to a non-Virginia-resident US citizen. Yes.
Whew.
You’re vacillating. Either the Times could know that Alexis could purchase an AR-15 based solely on research of Virginia law and the knowledge that he bought a shotgun, or they could not know that based on that information alone.
If it required follow-up reporting and could not be known just based on their attorneys’ poking around, then your argument that they should have immediately issued a correction is wrong.
The NYT also knew he was a US citizen and a resident of Texas.
So, yes: based on knowing:
[ul]
[li]Virginia law[/li][li]that Alexis was a US citizen[/li][li]that he bought a shotgun in Virginia from a dealer[/li][li]that he was a resident of Texas[/li][/ul]
None of those facts required “poking around.” And as an aside, it baffles me that you’d admit that the NYT didn’t want to poke around. Isn’t that their job?
But forget that. Based on only those facts, they knew or should have known that Virginia law did not stop him from buying an AR-15.
Wrong. You just admitted you don’t actually know what the law requires in terms of proof of citizenship documents. It could be that an expired passport (to use one very common example) is sufficient.
You misinterpret me. I’m saying that poking around is exactly what they would both want and need to do upon receiving this information, and that an immediate correction would be bad journalism.
It’s a very shaky argument. You have § 18.2-308.2:2(B)(1) calling explicitly for an unexpired passport, and (B)(5) of the same statute also calling for a passport, and you’d argue that the second reference could mean anything, expired or unexpired?
I said that no Virginia court, so far as I could find, has explicitly addressed the issue. i didn’t say I thought there was much in the way of real ambiguity about it. I also suggested I’d be surprised to find any Virginia gun store will to let you use an unexpired passport as proof of citizenship.
In fact, I just called Dick’s in Williamsburg, Virginia, to test your theory. (757) 258-3364. Call them yourself to confirm: they won’t let you use an expired passport as proof of citizenship, and won’t sell you a shotgun unless you can prove legal presence.
Oh.
So, now it’s September 30th.
When do you imagine their actual correction is coming?
Where does (B)(5) refer to a passport or any document at all? I thought it just said “proof of citizenship.” Did I read too quickly?
I don’t know what you’re talking about here. I understand this to be sarcasm, but I don’t follow the actual point you’re trying to make.
Which raises a plausible conclusion you didn’t consider: perhaps the NYT is just guilty of lazy journalism, and not complicit in some shadowy liberal conspiracy to give the AR-15 a bad reputation.
How many times must I disclaim “conspiracy” before your side stops trying again to place the word in my argument?
I’ll answer your question after you answer mine.
Not really fair, since I first said that I wasn’t claiming a conspiracy in post #17, and this is post #290.
But what the heck. I’m tempted by the spectre of actually learning the answer to my question – there’s actually a number of times I can say it at which it will become effective; I’m giddy with anticipation to learn what that number is, so I will go ahead and answer you.
Yes, lazy journalism is almost certainly a factor – but lazy journalism and my theory are not mutually exclusive.
When a reporter harbors a bias, and is lazy, then a conclusion like this one fits right into his preconceptions. He’s not motivated to check out the story; he lets it go, because it seems perfectly in line with his expectations.
But the same journalist, lazy though he might be, would never have let a story go to print that claimed, say, that Aaron Alexis was an Obama campaign worker in 2008. That false report would have been triple-checked and exhaustively vetted even by the lazy journalist, because it wold be a piece of news that ran so contrary to his preferred narrative that he’d make every attempt to refute it before reluctantly printing it.
(Unless he worked for Fox. Then lazy journalism could easily explain such a story. That mechanic of bias infecting stories is exactly what I’m describing).
OK?
Now, you – how many times must I explicitly say that “conspiracy” is NOT what I’m discussing before your side stops trying to use it as a strawman?
- What a coincidence.
Then I have only 149 to go.
Want makes you think a “liberal” journalist would pass up a really juicy story because of his “preferred narrative”? And yeah, he’d double check it, for sure he would, because if he passed it along to his editor without doing that he would hear of it. Soon. Loud.
And if the editor let the story run without being sure of it, he would be hearing about it too. Soon. Loud.
So, you figure that if this alleged and currently unnamed reporter…this unindicted non-conspirator…had proof positive that Obama was sneaking off to a Motel 6 to bone Miley Cyrus…and lets just say that goes against his “preferred narrative”…he would consider on the one hand the fame, the Pulitzer, the money, the blowjobs at the Times Christmas party…and turn all that aside to support his, ah, “preferred narrative”.
Of course, you would, being a man of impeccable moral character. Certainly, so would I. Probably. Good chance.
Of course.
But that same editor doesn’t care nearly as much about errors that assist the preferred narrative.
Not at all. For what seems like the fiftieth time, the discussion relates to instances without proof positive. A reporter with proof positive will run with the story.
A reporter without proof positive will not, if the story conflicts with the narrative he likes. But he won’t insist on proof when the story is more to his liking.
(boldened for my convience)
We DON’T know. That’s my point. The media outlets job is to report the “news” not repeat or invent rumors that may get them them a byline or at least noticed by future media employers.
You say “they” were misinformed. Misinformed by whom? The un-named sources? Isn’t that why the media outlets should be naming their sources? This isn’t a national security issue.
I heard from some guy, who knows a taxi driver, who’s dating an airline attendant, who was flying with John Travolta’s mechanic, who swears that the Navy Yard monster had an AK74. What more proof could anyone want?
Bottom line is that the mentally disturbed Navy Yard monster did NOT have an AR15. Every media outlet that “reported” there was an AR15 was WRONG. Misinformed or intentionally, they were WRONG. Those media outlets “should be” embareassed by their pssst poor performance and the public should demand that media outlets verify their horseshit BEFORE tossing it into the fan.
I am not arguing that point; it is a matter of record now. But Bricker’s contention that it was deliberate, motivated by a desire to mislead about the AR-15 is nothing more than opinion.
I don’t say it was necessarily deliberate, but yes, it absolutely arose because of a desire to vilify the AR-15.
Absent any smoking gun supporting that motive, that is just your opinion. Everyone has one.
(shortened for convience)
“IF” the media outlet’s personal actually were hearing about it soon and loud, why do they still continue to get so many of there early reporting wrong? It appears that being FIRST is their primary concern. Accuracy now comes in a distant 2nd.
Todays “journalists” and “editors” can easily go back and edit their stories to remove their errors and stupidity. Some even take the time to admit they were wrong.
There was a time when editors demanded verification before they would allow a story to be printed.
*Generations of editors have offered terse advice, including these old favorites:
"When in doubt, leave it out.” Origin unknown, though my first wire-service news editor would repeat this as a mantra. It should tug at the conscience of any writer with a finger over the button during a hot story. “Get it first, but first get it right.” Attributed to United Press editors. Translation: No excuses.
And finally the classic, said to be the motto of the famed City News Bureau in Chicago. It only sounds like hyperbole:
“Check it out. If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”*
Nonsense – even with a smoking gun, you’d handwave it away. See, e.g., Bernie Goldberg’s expose.
This is not simply an opinion. It’s a supportable hypothesis, with citation to the facts that support it.