A cite would help. An AR-15 doesn’t remotely sound like a shotgun or look like a shotgun.
agree
That’s very telling indeed. In fact, the term “navy base shooting, water pistol” returned 32,800,000 results. Clearly the media is trying to put water pistols in a bad light. The Super Soaker Thunderstorm must be outlawed!
Navy base shooting abortion returns 54 million. The media is trying to outlaw clothes hangers!
What’s your source for the alleged fact that the shooter did not have an AR-15? This isn’t that hard.
actually you need to bracket “water gun” because it’s 2 words and unrelated to each and it returns a much lower number but your point is taken.
The base itself wasn’t easily searchable because it’s name wasn’t used in many of the articles.
I tried this:
“navy yard”,shooting,ar-15_______325,000,000
“navy yard”,shooting,shotgun_____233,000,000
“navy yard”,shooting,“water gun”________5,560
“navy yard”,shooting,abortion______60,200,000
I concede your point.
What if its because nobody really cares whether or not it was an AR-15, or not? The Bushmaster gun was in the news, how many people would care if that were misidentified as an AR-15? Functionally, its not that different, it just has some appealing cosmetic touches, so it looks like what little Johnny Rambo wanted Santa to bring him for Christmas. Well, “appealing” to some people, Goddess alone knows why.
Two groups of people are likely to know, people who like guns and people who don’t. By a total non-coincidence, they are also the people who are likely to care. Ballistophiliacs, gun grabbers, and just about nobody else.
If somebody printed a picture of the crime scene, and identified a bird in the picture as a robin…and then some bird bugger calls up, all pissed off because it wasn’t a robin but a throat warbling greeb, and demands a correction…will he get one? No, because nobody cares.
A minority of the public, pro and con, gives a fuck, far far too much of a fuck. The rest of the public is luke-warm, ambivalent.
And if there is no conspiracy, is there at least someone making a decision? Someone saying “Well, we could report it like this so it makes big scary black guns more scary! Yeah, let’s do that!”?
Well, OK. Who? Why? To curry favor with a huge and well funded pressure group? Like the GGA (Gun Grabbers of America), with their formidable funding and lobbyists? Who would be afraid of a piddling little bunch of nellies like the NRA?
Did anyone make such a decision, is that what is implied here? Because conspiracy is right out, and if no one made such a conscious decision…what’s left? Outside of a lurking sense of persecution by shadowy figures moving in the gloom?
No, it doesn’t. It simply shows that Fox republished AP content without much editorial intervention.
Right. It’s all the other guys that are guilty of editorial intervention. Got it.
Convenient.
and this is a thread unto itself. This has always been a problem with the production of news. I say production because news is a money making venture and information was often second hand because of the cost. It wasn’t until the middle of the last century when technology caught up with it and the concept of researching news with some degree of independence. If a news story was big enough then a person could be dispatched to the location and report back.
That took money which came from the revenue’s generated from selling the stories. But we’re now coming full circle with the life cycle of the product. For a variety of reasons the money isn’t there anymore and news organizations are now relying on each other again for stories.
You’re not alone. There seem to be a few posters here that believe that the word “Convenient,” somehow constitutes a rebuttal in debate.
It does not.
Due to some unusual work circumstances, I was cut off from the news and only found out about the shooting from my friends via email and various social networking media. Owing to my line of work and my hobbies, a good number of my friends are firearms aficionados. Initial reports from my friends were that it was 3 shooters, one of whom had an AR-15.
Guess which one of those basic facts was corrected more quickly and more emphatically.
I really don’t give a shit what weapon was used, but I did care about the number of shooters because I had to work at the Pentagon the next day and there’s a huge difference between workplace violence and a terrorist attack in terms of me being able to get into the building to do my job. So imagine my annoyance when my friends are falling all over themselves to exonerate the exalted AR-15. So many of them, upon hearing about the latest mass shooting, immediately think about how it will affect their guns. It’s annoying.
This very thread is annoying. The media issued corrections, I was listening to NPR the next day and they had the specifics sorted out. It’s really not a big deal, is it?
Well, that’s just what a gun-grabber would say, isn’t it? You’ve already confessed to listening to NPR…
Yes. This very thread is annoying. Bricker was trying to make some obscure point, about liberals being better (or worse, hard to tell) informed about some insignificant point in the recent news about a very terrible event.
Furthermore, look how much hay is STILL being made about the shooter’s security clearance, not just by the media but by legislators and people who, you know, actually matter. Anyone who knows dick-all about working for the DoD knows what’s involved with getting a Secret clearance, and knows that the fact that dude had one is all but irrelevant. But nobody’s falling all over themselves to point that out about the media coverage. In fact, a couple of the ultra-libertarian types I was hanging out with that day used this as an example of “Yet Another Thing the Government Can’t Get Right, Those Stupid Morons.” I had to ruin their little party there by explaining to them how it actually works. Apparently getting the story right only matters if it’s about bang-sticks.
It is my understanding that the process was contracted out to a for profit, private enterprise type company. Which worked so well with Blackwater, what could possibly go wrong? OK, so maybe they cut a few corners to boost the ol’ bottom line, but hey! That’s the American way!
I’ve got a Saiga that would probably fool some people and I think they are now making uppers in shotgun gauges.
Just like explosions tend to be protrayed as terrorism until we find out the facts, shooting massacres tends to involve an AR-15 until we find out the facts. It just sensationalism. It used to be the same with rape and black men.
I’ve seen an AR-15 over a Mossberg 12 gauge. Its supposed to be for door breaching or some shit like that, I think its just a really heavy gun that noone will ever use in real life (like most of my guns).
Its sensationalism, MSNBC and FOX both feed into it (from different perspectives).
Its like FoxNews only exists when they are wrong about shit and they don’t exist the other 5% of the time.
Yeah, don’t get me started on how those companies work. Cutting corners isn’t one of them though, at least not as far as I’ve seen.
You are just as free as any of us to project whatever interpretation you’d like. If some media organizations reporting reflects their bias and intent to demonize the AR-15 stuff, and somehow you *just know *that when Fox News does the same thing, it doesn’t reflect the **same **intent, fine.
That doesn’t constitue anything like evidence, of course, it’s just projecting your view of the world. Not really any debate possible, at that point, seems to me.
Still like to hear how this was possible without any conspiracy. Did a whole bunch of media honchos all decide at the same time, without communication: “Hey! Things are kinda dull around here, lets piss off the NRA! That’ll liven things up a bit!”
BTW, here’s Fox reporting the AR-15 under its own byline: