The AR-15 and the Navy Yard shooting

[samclem]

Without checking first…

Did the Associated Press also report it as an AR-15?
If the did, did they correct the story? When?
Is the AP the evil Liberal Media?

[China_Guy]

Bricker, the “media” is usually pretty damn slack on corrections. Corrections don’t sell ads. Why waste time and effort on a correction unless it’s to avoid being litigated against?

Ever since there was a Fourth Estate, there have been people railing against the lack of follow up and correcting erroneous, and often coincidentally slanderous, first reports. And even when corrections are made, the corrections rarely make headlines nor erase those first opinions.

So, maybe maybe it was a full on conspiracy that when ever there are multiple shots fired then the default is AR-15 until confirmed, maybe it was someone in the media with a hard-on against assault weapons that deliberately wrote a storyline that was picked up, maybe it was the fog of reporting, and maybe just maybe it was reporting by someone that doesn’t know jack squat about guns. IMHO the latter is more likely than the former.

(Magiver - queer gun for the win! I’m plagiarizing this line)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

“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.

One might as well just say “liberal hive mind” and get it over with. :rolleyes:

[Ravenman]

Bricker: when the media reported that three people were carrying out the shooting, one of whom was wearing military fatigues, what type of bias was the media exhibiting? Perhaps an anti-military bias?

[Magiver]

@ElvisL1ves

One might as well just say “liberal hive mind” and get it over with. :rolleyes:

Or one could say there is bias in the news on many issues and leave out the adjectives.

[Czarcasm]

Hasn’t the topic of this thread been discussed, at great length, in other current threads?

[Procrustus]

@Bricker

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?

What makes you think it is “factually untrue?” Something you learned from the media?

[elucidator]

“The media” is, for the most part, a commercial enterprise, not a political one. This trivial kerfluffle may lose CNN (or whomsoever) some eyeballs. Money.

Large numbers of people support modest and sensible regulations on firearms, but they do so in a luke-warm sort of fashion, they simply think it reasonable. A much smaller subset of people get hysterically panty-twisted at the very thought of regulations on firearms. But stories that are biased against guns will not draw in the former and will alienate the latter.

It wouldn’t make them any money. And here in America, that is the crux of the biscuit.

[Magiver]

@Ravenman

Bricker: when the media reported that three people were carrying out the shooting, one of whom was wearing military fatigues, what type of bias was the media exhibiting? Perhaps an anti-military bias?

well given the title of the thread I would go with bias against guns.

[BrainGlutton]

Without checking, I think I recall reading that he used a shotgun.

[Magiver]

@elucidator

“The media” is, for the most part, a commercial enterprise, not a political one. This trivial kerfluffle may lose CNN (or whomsoever) some eyeballs. Money.

Large numbers of people support modest and sensible regulations on firearms, but they do so in a luke-warm sort of fashion, they simply think it reasonable. A much smaller subset of people get hysterically panty-twisted at the very thought of regulations on firearms. But stories that are biased against guns will not draw in the former and will alienate the latter.

It wouldn’t make them any money. And here in America, that is the crux of the biscuit.

There is no political bias in the media because it’s a money venture? HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa…

I’ll have butter and jam on that biscuit.

[elucidator]

Without checking, I think I recall reading that he used a shotgun.

But was it an assault shotgun?

[Magiver]

@BrainGlutton

Without checking, I think I recall reading that he used a shotgun.

Sounds like both versions made the news. Lets look at a quick google search:

navy base shooting, shotgun - 2,930,000 results
navy base shooting, AR-15 - 11,900,000 results

Looks to me like the AR-15 was the dominant version by a factor of 4 to 1.

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

“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?

News outlets are never in a hurry to issue corrections.

As for “conspiracy,” I would accept as a conspiracy an editor and a writer at The New York Times who between the two of them agreed that they would publish stories about the shooting and intentionally insert erroneous mentions of AR-15s in order to stir up negative public feelings about AR-15s. You wouldn’t even have to show that another media outlet was in on the agreement. But I will not accept as evidence of such a conspiracy inferences made from facts such as “they got it wrong and failed to correct it promptly.” I would require more direct evidence.

Incompetence, error, or carelessness plus a reluctance to admit mistake is much more likely.

[Procrustus]

@Magiver

Sounds like both versions made the news. Lets look at a quick google search:

navy base shooting, shotgun - 2,930,000 results
navy base shooting, AR-15 - 11,900,000 results

Looks to me like the AR-15 was the dominant version by a factor of 4 to 1.

I have never seen a study indicating you can draw such conclusions from the number of results on a google search

Anyway, how can we even know an AR-15 wasn’t used? We weren’t there. I guess we have to trust the media reports saying it was a shotgun. Or, maybe we have to trust the reports saying it was anAR-15.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Bricker

“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?

You are again assuming facts not introduced into evidence counselor. Facts I would contend come from your own bias and not that of the media.

I contend that my own perspective on the news media is about as good as anyones. While, yes, there are reporters out there with biases, such run on both sides of the aisle. In large part, in my experience, reporters are semi-disinterested parties, having long ago burnt out any willingness to engage in political discussions with anyone except other reporters. Simply put, covering such issues for any length of time makes us hate the people who are involved in the debate. So a reporter, regardless of political affiliation, will end up hating both the people from the NRA (and its supporters) as well as the Brady Campaign and its partisans.

This tends to come out in a disgust for the process that we’re forced to cover as well as sheer hatred for elected officials. Most reporters wouldn’t piss on a congressman if they saw them on fire.

You - with no hard evidence of the process behind the reporting of the Navy Yard assault except your own leanings - instead choose to look for enemy action than to the circumstances of the coverage.

1. It happened by surprise (naturally enough)
2. It happened on a secure facility. One in which getting any information out would be difficult.
3. There was a need to report it AS it was happening, which always leads to errors.

To assume that errors that result from those circumstances derive from bias rather than stupidity reveals only your own biases. I quote Matthew 7:3, my friend: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

If there is any real media scandal at work here, it is the lack of coverage the event has gotten in the national press. The Navy Yard shooting, unlike Aurora, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech all got much more coverage for a much longer time. This one, for several reasons including the fact that the shooter is dead and that it occurred on a federal facility that’s not about to let a bunch of cameras in to get background reels, is destined - apparently - to face quickly.

Honestly, I would prefer it to fade for that reason than that it fade because we are growing disinterested in such events.

Again, I have no particular dog in this fight. I’m not a gun guy by any means. However, I’ve always thought the 2nd amendment very clearly allows for the private ownership of firearms.

But the accusations of media bias is nothing more than a facile, pointless distraction to any real discussion. To introduce into an argument is to put oneself outside the realm of actual discussion of policy and politics and label oneself an outsider in Washington. Senators, Congressman and lobbyists will offer such accusation up for the media - because the media loves covering itself (trust me) - but behind closed doors the pros know that it’s more a matter of ‘us vs them’ and that Sherrod Brown - for example - has a lot more in common with Ted Cruz than he does with Wolf Blitzer.

[Lobohan]

I would say that the way the media talks about guns is due, in part, to ignorance. Most reporters don’t know anything about firearms. So they make stupid mistakes and assumptions.

Making stupid mistakes and assumptions isn’t the result of a conspiracy, it’s the result of not knowing the area reported on. I don’t know much about football, so if I were reporting on a game, I might use wrong terminology. Big whoop.

[Hank_Beecher]

With all of the calls flooding in it is entirely possible that there were callers reporting a person with an AR-15 who were mistaking the first swat and police for a gunman, since he was reported to be wearing fatigue type clothes.

The media does seem to have a hard on for the evil black assault rifle, that could definitely have played a part in the erroneous reporting as well.

[Captain_Amazing]

Isn’t it most likely that somebody got an erroneous report that an AR-15 was used, some reporter put it on without fact checking, and then everybody else just reported from that. That’s the thing about these breaking news stories. They don’t get fact checked, really, because you want to get the story out first. So it’s always something like, “Reports are coming in that X. We’re covering this story and will have more information for you when it unfolds.”

[Captain_Amazing]

@Bricker

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?

The New York Times corrected the article on September 20th.

State Law Prevented Sale of Assault Rifle to Suspect Last Week, Officials Say...

If you go to the end of the article from the 17th, you get the following correction:

An article on Wednesday about the gunman in the Navy Yard shooting, using information from senior law enforcement officials, misstated a provision in Virginia state gun law. Out-of-state buyers must provide additional forms of identification to purchase a high-capacity AR-15 rifle; the laws do not prohibit the sales of all AR-15 rifles to all out-of-state residents.