“…I don’t say it was necessarily deliberate…”
OR the reports that there* was not* an AR15 are wrong. It’s so hard to tell these days. Who are you going to believe, the media or the media?
I could explain this, but you don’t deserve it.
Quite all right. Such an explanation would most likely involve a convoluted series of tiresome semantic parsings as well as elaborate twists and contortions. I am entirely content to allow the reader to review the evidence and come to their own conclusions. Rest assured, your judgement of my character rests lightly on me.
So far, you have steadily retreated from a series of insupportable assertions, such as your authoritative assertion about reporters, based on nothing that you are willing to cite.
You started out with a bold assault on “the media” and its biases but cannot supply us with anything more pervasive than the New York Times. And it is an indictment largely based on insinuation and suggestion, such as your judgement that its retraction and apology was “anemic”. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but that’s all it is.
The *Times *screwed up. Their retraction does not meet your exacting standards for candor and honesty. That’s all you got. A dog’s breakfast, and a meager one at that.
I would chose to believe the police report. The lame stream media eventually gets the story correct. That’s why I’ve chosen to wait 48 hours before believing whatever horse poop the LSM is initially shoveling during these HOT news stories.
Its the fog of whore.
LOL. Yes it is.
But it’s a fog that the LSM media created for itself. When DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN was headlined by the Chicago Tribune, the Tribune was embareassed and it’s peers ridiculed them for being so stupid. It’s readers were embareassed for the paper. The Tribune didn’t make the same mistake again.
Today, such a story would be edited out of the electronic database and the media outlet would continue issuing equally misleading stories. We MuSt Be FiRsT, We MuSt Be FiRsT, We MuSt Be FiRsT. Besides, we meant well and who really remembers what happened yesterday?
What happened to - When in doubt, leave it out.
Why deliberately muddy the waters (except to sell advertisement)?
Would the Navy Yard story have had so many reporting errors if the LSM had been embareassed by it’s initial coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing? Or by the initial mis-reporting of any of the previous HOT news stories? We MuSt Be FiRsT, We MuSt Be FiRsT. The LSM is acting more like the internet/blogosphere than as a respected/respectable news reporting service.
There you have it - when your argument devolves into ritually denouncing the “lamestream media”, something the OP is doing too even without using that term, then not only is it over and you’ve lost, but that has been the case for quite a while already.
Does their retraction correctly convey to the reader what actually happened?
Because that question, as a measure of how effective a correction is, doesn’t seem to be all that exacting. It seems more… basic.
Perhaps, but that’s not your point, is it? You are not all hot and bothered by the lack of punctilious adherence to fact, you are advancing your firm conviction that you know what the motive is, a pervasive non-conspiracy to demonize the AR-15.
(It appears that when you think you have the winning point, its ok to address me, but when asked for a cite you ain’t got, suddenly, I am beneath your dignity? Is that how dignity works? Don’t really have any, so I pretty much have to ask…)
Yes. You have relieved me of any obligation to explain a point I don’t wish to explain. When I have a point I want to explain, I reply; when I don’t, i simply refer to the “You don’t deserve it,” rejoinder, which is exactly what you did in the example I linked, and it’s exactly how I’ll continue to treat your arguments.
Unless you remove my justification by going back and answering the point I raised, of course, at which point I won’t really have any reason to continue that approach.
Like when elucidator thinks he has a winning point, regardless how small, he makes it, but when he don’t he just posts another non sequitur.
There’s a Pit for that sort of thing. Go ahead. Make my day.
I’ve already told you what I think of you in the Pit and you pretty much agree with it, even seem proud of it. But anyway I’ve noticed a tendency of you to make non sequiturs when you run out of argument. That’s not an insult, just an observation. 
What refreshing candor! A lesser man might have pretended to be moved by principle, rather than freely admit to a cheap and tawdry rhetorical trick!
That’s as close as you’ll see to him admitting being wrong here, this “I don’t wish to explain” line that implies it’s all *your *fault for being so contemptible a person as to actually expose him.
Well, now I have a new definition of “chutzpah,” so at least I got something out of this thread.
Outside of that post, what did you put into it?
Hahahaha. “Ritually denouncing” the proven history of media outlets repeatedly and continually getting THEIR facts WRONG immediately after the latest hot story appears? The media outlets COULD simply report verified facts. You know, a - Get It First but First Get It Right - sort of thing.
There was NO AR15 used by the Navy Yard monster and yet it was repeatedly reported by, yes, the LSM, that he used an AR15. A simple search for “Navy Yard shooting weapon” produces numerous articles still pointing to or blaming the “non-existent” AR15. All of those articles are WRONG. Should I assume that sloppy, lazy, and cut-and-paste “reporting” must be OK with you.
How many people are aware that the Navy Yard shooter actually used a Remington 870 Express shotgun (yawn) and later stole a Beretta semi-automatic pistol (yawn) from someone he had shot? How many people know that the Navy Yard shooter had an AR15 (yikes! not an AR15! Now THAT’S news worth reporting!)?
You’ve choosen to say that I’ve “lost” something. Was there a competition? Kinda like the non-existent AR15, maybe? The media outlets got many things wrong in their early reporting of the Navy Yard shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing and the (insert name of HOT news story here). I find their early reporting to be pretty lame.
You’ve also choosen to say “it’s over”. “Over’? Did you say ‘over’? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!”
LOL. A cheap and tawdry rhetorical trick that you apparently resorted to first.
Otter: He can’t do that do that to our pledges.
Boon: Only we can do that to our pledges.
What refreshing candor, indeed?