uh huh.
um… What? We presume it was a shotgun because that’s what the official account of it was.
un-named sources confirm the possibility that few people in the news business actually do their jobs.
that just leaves us with gullible people who will print what they want to present us with as news.
People don’t push for new legislation, or make or vote on national policy, if you call a touchdown a home run.
The media is no longer about reporting facts as news; it’s about “the scoop,” and the truth be hanged.
Unfortunately, too many goobers listen to that tripe and the next thing you know, the Feinstein/Schumer/Brady Bunch is trotting out the AWB again, citing grass-roots pressure to ban the “AR-15 dual-purpose-select-fire-heat-seeking-armor-piercing-cop-killer-assault-rifle/shotgun, with the shoulder thing that goes up,” and citing the NYT article (or AP article, and everyone who picked it up and ran it).
And you know that’s what the official account of it was because…?
Yeah, but it works both ways. Both sides take information out of context to promote their own sides. And both sides (of any issue) are willing to leap on a new fact that supports their side regardless of whether it holds up in the long run.
Or, in short, Washington and the reporting thereof, no longer holds any interest in getting at the truth and honest debate.
I suppose media reports of three gunmen could be a reflection of an anti-gun bias in the media. We all know the NRA’s position on prime numbers: no further explanation needed.
Thank god the number of suspects wasn’t expressed as an algebraic equation! That would be cause for revolution.
My ass. Those folks from CNN, Fox News and the NYT did their jobs perfectly. The problem is that you want them to behave as a non-profit and they want to make money in an increasingly difficult environment.
If you want non-biased reporting in the United States you need to go with either Morning Edition or All Things Considered on NPR or the BBC World Service. None of the others are working in YOUR interest, only their own, despite what the mythos might tell you.
These “gullible” people? They believe what they say, yes, because they are easily fooled. And if they “want to print” that, well, of course, because they believe it to be true, yes?
So, what happened? The reporters told the story straight and the editors altered it? And who fooled the gullible reporters? Can you identify which particular group of “gun grabbers” is responsible, here? The ones who fooled the reporters or the ones who altered the reporting?
That was my take at the time of the incident as I was following the streaming news reports from DC. It soon became from “one or more” to “two or three” gunmen and initially “a semiautomatic of some kind” became “a shotgun and an assault rifle, perhaps an AR-15 taken from a fallen guard”. I could almost hear/read in real time as the game of “telephone” developed with different media outlets quoting one another and various “sources” (The next morning that shining vector of ignorance, Geraldo, was talking about “Bushmasters” on his radio show). One of the pitfalls lies in relying on various “witnesses” who may not be themselves so reliable due to the stress situation. The reports of a second and third gunmen would seem to come from people confusing early responders (armed but not armored) and giving conflicting depictions of the one assailant.
Someone being interviewed the same day spoke of shots in rapid succession and one of the reporters asked a leading question sort of like “so you’d say that was semiautomatic fire”. Problem with that is that “semiautomatic” can mean any common handgun, not necessarily a pseudo-AW.
That any time a citizen were to go on a shooting rampage in the US it would be unsurprising for it to be with one of the assault rifle lookalike/knockoffs and most notably the AR-15 type, does have a basis in reality, having been present at Aurora, Newtown, the Beltway snipers, etc. but it does not mean it HAS to be automatically presumed to be what a mass shooter is using.
It is my memory that the reference to the AR-15 was first provided by authorities within the Navy Yard on Monday. The correction to that initial claim was provided on Tuesday.
While there may or may not be a “desire” on the part of the nebulous “media” to connect certain weapons with crimes of violence, quoting the spokesperson of the Navy and police regarding the weapon used hardly seems out of line.
Is there any evidence that the “media” told the PR flack from the police or Navy to mention AR-15 in the initial reports?
Or should we conclude that various supporters of the sale of AR-15s or assault weapons have a desire to tie the media to a campaign of disinformation?
I never thought about what weapon he used, or cared. Just another gun in a nation drowning in them.
This is an obvious anti-gun control thread, so the answer to that is:* “He didn’t have an AR-15, therefore all gun control is evil, guns are good and holy and everyone should have them at all times. Except left wingers, homosexuals, blacks and other undesirables, who should be shot.”*
The bias towards instant reporting of news.
But notice that that error was very quickly corrected when it became apparent, that the initial information was wrong. I can effortlessly post ten links here to prominent corrections making it clear that only one shooter was involved.
The efforts to correct the AR-15 reporting, in contrast, are quite thin. Anemic, even.
And since I specifically pointed out I was rejecting the concept of “conspiracy” in the exact post you replied to, I would love to know why you felt it necessary to explain why this wasn’t a conspiracy.
We all know it was shotgun work. Do you have a cite saying some number of people think Ar-15s were involved?
No.
No. Something I learned from the legislature of Virginia.
In this thread alone:
Post 5
Post 9
Post 33
Post 35
Which of those posts didn’t you read?
This is threadshitting, Der Trihs - very obnoxious threadshitting even compared to some of your other work. I’m giving you a warning for this one.
Whatever it is, it includes Fox and the New York Post and the Washington Times. Just as “intellectuals” is a category that includes Thomas Carlyle and Nietzsche and Ayn Rand and Russell Kirk, a fact Paul Johnson seems to have overlooked.
That’s right. The media wants to demonize the scary assault rifles and have them banned or heavily regulated as the thin wedge on the road to a total gun ban. But it’s not going to work, especially with patriotic defenders of the second amendment such as yourself serving as a watchdog for our hard fought freedoms and guaranteeing we never fall into the chaos and madness that is Europe or Japan.