I think maybe I see it, as through a glass, dorkly. No actual decision is ever made to demonize, no such decision is needed, because all of the liberal media reflexively aligns around certain understood themes. Hence, no collusion or conspiracy is required, nor even communication. It is perfectly devious, in that none of the conspirators need ever communicate, they simply misinform in favor of the Agenda without conscious decision or collusion.
What a perfect conspiracy, when none of the participants are even aware that they are conspiring!
Yeah, see post 118, it got certain details wrong, among the many other details it got wrong. You have another of the great conservative hypotheses going - totally unfalsifiable.
Yes. Because the headline continues to repeat the claim, and reading the headline and correction together, it looks like what happened is that the shooter tried to buy the AR-15 but didn’t have the “extra identification” that was required. Their correction does nothing to dissipate the impression produced by their inaccurate title.
It’s very falsifiable: the NYT’s correction could say, “Contrary to the article’s title, there was no attempt to purchase an AR-15.”
If they did that, I’d have nothing to say.
If you wish to discuss unfalsifiable, perhaps we could instead discuss your defense of the media, who can make “mistake” after “mistake” and still be judged to be making “mistakes.” At what point might you conclude that the vigor and speed of their issuing corrections had something to do with the preferred narrative?
Thought experiment: suppose one initial erroneous piece of reportage was that Alexis had been an Obama campaign volunteer. Do you suppose the New York Times would have allowed that “mistake” to continue?
Of course not. They might have reported it initially --even then I suspect they’d have asked to make sure before repeating it – but in the rush, I can imagine they would have said it. But can you imagine them becoming aware of that being untrue and relegating it to a half-assed correction? I certainly can’t.
But – that’s just the kind of error that Fox News would approach in a half-assed, minor correction moment.
Just from my experience in the actual newspaper industry, there are mistakes for which editors will issue explicit corrections and there are mistakes which they will merely try not to repeat, without explicit acknowledgement of the error. The latter would be the case especially if it is something they consider trivial, uninteresting, tangential, or marginal to the focus of an ongoing story.
God knows I’m trying to see your point. You’re upset because the media didn’t say the shooter didn’t try to purchase an AR-15, or because the law didn’t allow him to get one, or because there wasn’t a law and he could have bought one but didn’t want to?
How would any of this advance the “agenda” of the gun demonizers?
What difference does it make for those pro or anti gun control if he tried or didn’t try to buy an AR-15, and was allowed or not allowed to buy one?
In your experience, how typical is it that something trivial, uninteresting, tangential, or marginal to the focus of an ongoing story is used as the headline or title of an article?
However, doesn’t that also further the NRA narrative? “let’s enforce the gun laws we already have instead of putting new restrictions on law abiding gun owners.”
“we don’t need more gun laws, the ones we have prevented this shooter from getting an AR-15.”
On balance, I’d say no – since the "law’ in question doesn’t actually exist, it seems more likely to advance the general idea that laws banning such purchases work, and we ought to have them everywhere. In other words, the take-away is that since the law stopping the sale of an AR-15 worked so well, we should enact that law in every state.
I don’t think anyone but the NYT claimed the laws we have prevented this shooter from getting an AR-15. He could have purchased one just as easily as he purchased the Remington 870. Maybe he didn’t like the ergonomics of it when he tried it out, maybe he believed Uncle Joe about how effective a shotgun is at stopping people, I don’t know.
Very confusing, Counselor. On the one hand, you firmly deny offering any sort of conspiracy theory. On the other hand, you offer us posts that insinuate and suggest a conspiracy of sorts. Is there some principle of rhetoric that you can go ahead and insinuate something so long as you deny you are doing so?
Is it some sort of “conspiracy” born out of an unrecognized bias, that all the liberal media tilt in a certain direction, hence, report the news consistent with that bias? That might be plausible, however, impossible to prove.
Shirley, someone made a decision, yes? An editor, most likely. It appears your main bitching point is the lack of adequate admission of guilt, a retraction that is absent, or not sufficiently infused with mea fuckup.
Editors don’t like retractions, in the same way that a judge doesn’t like having his decisions reversed. Wouldn’t that be sufficient explanation without any further implication of agenda? If Kim Kardashian was reported to have had a wart removed from her hip but it was actually from her navel, would an editor be compelled to offer a woeful admission of failure, if nobody gives a shit?
Perhaps if you boil this down to a single thesis, one that does not depend on insinuation and suggestion, but is readily falsifiable? Clear and crisp, with defined premises and sharp edges?
Bricker: When actors are similarly motivated, they act similarly. No agreement is needed.
Now, see, that’s the part I’m having some trouble with. I think I showed you that Fox News had pretty much moved in lockstep with most of the rest of ‘the media’ in this event, which implies similar motivation from Fox. I doubt Fox had similar motivation to bias the AR-15 angle, but did share the motivation to be first, or fast, and therefore careless.
Did you see the bit John Stewart did with clips of CNN breaking this story?
An insider should know that.