Another reason to mistrust the Washington Post


PDA






JTHunter
June 12, 2011, 12:22 AM
Mexican Drug Cartels Upgrade Weaponry Again

Fresh on the heels of reports that Mexico's drug cartels have been acquiring military-grade weapons from Central America, the Washington Post, believe it or not, has published new information further undercutting the notion that a "lack" of U.S. gun control laws is the cause of problems south of the border.

An article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/mexican-cartels-now-using-tanks/2011/06/06/AGacrALH_story.html) published by the newspaper yesterday says that the cartels have started using armored "assault vehicles" equipped with inch-thick steel plating and bullet-proof glass, gun turrets, firing ports, battering rams, and devices -- like those in James Bond's Aston Martin in Goldfinger -- that spew oil to foil vehicles in pursuit.

The rest of the article can be read here (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6907).

If you enjoyed reading about "Another reason to mistrust the Washington Post" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Old Fuff
June 12, 2011, 12:32 AM
Why do we need another reason to distrust the Washington Post? I thought we had more then enough as it is... :neener: :rolleyes:

AlexanderA
June 12, 2011, 01:46 AM
The Washington Post has been crusading against guns ever since its publisher, Philip Graham (husband of the legendary Katherine Graham), killed himself with a shotgun in 1963.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/09/reviews/graham-philip.html

It's just not rational with the family that controls that paper. And everyone knows that if you work there, you have to toe this "party line." It's very specific and very inflexible. It will only change if someone else buys ownership of the paper.

Apocalypse-Now
June 12, 2011, 01:58 AM
i can't trust the media? :eek:

9mmforMe
June 12, 2011, 08:18 AM
Damn that anit-gun rag! I don't like to label myself but I have "liberal" leanings and I do not like this paper! I was born in Northern VA and lived there for 35 years...bleck!!...bleck on the paper I mean, not VA...I miss my home!

ATBackPackin
June 12, 2011, 08:47 AM
Well I think we should also ban:

Bulletproof glass
Steel over a 1/16 of an inch
Run-flat tires
Welders
Trucks with over a 1/4 ton payload

This way we can make sure nothing like this ever happens again. We have to think about the children.

Shawn

Oh yeah, ball-bearings are needed for turrets, so ban those as well.

cassandrasdaddy
June 12, 2011, 09:51 AM
what is it in that article thats got folks panties knotted? its not anti nor is it inaccurate or inflammatory.

there exists a perception amongst some that gunnies fall victim to "group think".
ever wonder where that comes from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/20/DI2007042001760.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/socialpolicy/guncontrol/index.html

Neverwinter
June 12, 2011, 10:28 AM
i can't trust the media? :eek:
I saw the words "Washington Post" and stopped reading there. Don't wanna listen to the lies of the liberal media.

I'll stick with media I can trust: my Fox News, talk radio, and chain emails.

Ohio Gun Guy
June 12, 2011, 10:31 AM
I'm beyond basic mistrust......

JohnBT
June 12, 2011, 10:41 AM
"I saw the words "Washington Post" and stopped reading there."

Your loss. Good article, I read it yesterday.

Lots of closed minds here.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

JohnBT
June 12, 2011, 10:56 AM
This is the same Washington Post that published Stephen Hunter's article on why 33 rounds make sense in a defensive weapon. You know, the Stephen Hunter who writes the Bob Lee and Earl Swagger books. The one who wrote his first gun book in 1980 iirc and who worked for the Post for 11 years and retired a few years ago.

Oh yeah, the Post is strictly off limits when it comes to guns.

"Stephen Hunter - Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon
Feb 6, 2011 ... Sleek, its lines rakishly tilted to boost the ergonomics that index grip placement to barrel, this automatic pistol has but one function: to ...
www.washingtonpost.com "


There are many examples, but here's one just one more, the front page article on VCDL and Mr. Van Cleave in 2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47809-2004Nov13.html

"In his living room, Van Cleave proudly displays the 2004 Grassroots Organization of the Year award from the national Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "

Neverwinter
June 12, 2011, 12:08 PM
Lots of closed minds here.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
We just don't want to see the wrong things.

I've been told that the liberal media lies. I know this to be true because they say things that contradict what I know to be true from my trusted media sources.

jiminhobesound
June 12, 2011, 12:43 PM
There is no defense for the lies, corrupted reporting and lack of journalistic ethics. Read the Times

zoom6zoom
June 12, 2011, 01:50 PM
We don't even use the Post to wrap fish. It makes them smell funny.

alsaqr
June 12, 2011, 02:05 PM
what is it in that article thats got folks panties knotted? its not anti nor is it inaccurate or inflammatory.

Exactly. i read the article several times and fail to see what all the excitement is about.

shockwave
June 12, 2011, 02:17 PM
I'll stick with media I can trust: my Fox News, talk radio, and chain emails.

Whew! For a moment there, I was almost afraid this person was serious. Now it see it's just satire.

cassandrasdaddy
June 12, 2011, 02:50 PM
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Heretic
June 12, 2011, 05:07 PM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

FruitCake
June 12, 2011, 07:09 PM
I don't trust the media whatsoever. In my experiences they lie and when they are wrong they do not admit it. They just stop talking about the subject and hope everyone FORGETS but I do not forget because I pay serious attention to what they say. I have lost trust and faith in the media myself.

Erik M
June 12, 2011, 07:32 PM
Im glad I live back, I mean way back, In the appalachians. At least here all of the crank addicts cooking bathtub meth don't drive in tanks while they steal copper from the phone company.

SlamFire1
June 12, 2011, 09:41 PM
I remember watching, on 60 minutes I think, the President of Mexico state that the Drug war issues he was having were all due to American firearms. Had nothing to do with the Drugs or Drug money, nope, all problems were due to American guns.

Well since the BATF shipments of guns direct to the Mexican Drug cartels have dried up, I guess those Drug Lords simply go South for new supply.

I do like the idea that America stop making pickup trucks and selling pickup trucks in Mexico. Obviously the Drug Lords can't build armored vehicles without American pickup trucks.

Jim NE
June 12, 2011, 11:57 PM
I HATE the Post, but...

...the reason for drug violence south of the border isn't American firearms...it's AMERICANS DRUG USE!! Our culture is in decline.

kozak6
June 13, 2011, 12:10 AM
Quote:
what is it in that article thats got folks panties knotted? its not anti nor is it inaccurate or inflammatory.
Exactly. i read the article several times and fail to see what all the excitement is about..

Yeah, I don't really see what the problem is.

Where is the inaccuracy? Where is the so-called "liberal bias"? Why is this article a reason to avoid the Washington Post?

How about a show of hands? Who actually even read the article?

What a useless thread.

JohnBT
June 13, 2011, 09:52 AM
"Im glad I live back, I mean way back, In the appalachians. At least here all of the crank addicts cooking bathtub meth don't drive in tanks while they steal copper from the phone company."

Hey, if there is landline phone service in your area you aren't as far back in the hills as you think you are. :) Do you have to walk towards town to go hunting?

vaherder
June 13, 2011, 12:13 PM
New York Times is way further to the left then the Post.

Post has always had a liberal bias going back to the mid 60's at least.

Most journalist be they on TV or in print dont have a clue at that includes many at Fox news and Business especially Neil Whats his Name. They have never had held real jobs. So instead of doing or teaching they write and talk about other failures. They all want to write for NYT or post or be on CNN or CBS so they develop the necessary biases do achieve that goal. If they ant to appear on Fox they just tilt right.

Remember Federal LE is scarier then local LE. Read about NCI during Tailhook and rememebr they did not get arrest authority in CONUS until the early 2000's.

Solution to the drug problem is legalize mj and tax it.

A biased media is nothing new in this country. Read the NYT or the WP right before WWII or a major newspaper right before and during the Civil War.

BTW Hunter is former Postie.

JohnBT
June 13, 2011, 05:57 PM
"Post has always had a liberal bias going back to the mid 60's at least."

I started reading the Washington Post every day in 1962. They really had a liberal bias back then. The last 20 years or so not so much. They aren't quite neutral, but they certainly aren't the leftist-leaning wackos they used to be. I'm not just talking guns, but finance, politics, drugs, etc.

JohnBT
June 13, 2011, 06:01 PM
"BTW Hunter is former Postie."

That's why I mentioned it earlier. Imagine that, a gun guy working for the W.Post.

"The one who wrote his first gun book in 1980 iirc and who worked for the Post for 11 years and retired a few years ago." - me, post #11 in this thread

JustinJ
June 13, 2011, 06:21 PM
"I've been told that the liberal media lies. I know this to be true because they say things that contradict what I know to be true from my trusted media sources."

Please tell me that was meant to be ironic.

Seriously, what on earth is bias about that article? Next i'm going to her Sara Palin's Paul Rever comment's are CNN's fault.

feedthehogs
June 13, 2011, 11:07 PM
Another person who's husbands mental illness and resulting death from it blames the instrument of his death. You can bet if he had drank himself to death she wouldn't have crusaded against the booze industry.

She died in 01, so the kids still carry on her tradition.

Neverwinter
June 14, 2011, 01:23 AM
"I've been told that the liberal media lies. I know this to be true because they say things that contradict what I know to be true from my trusted media sources."

Please tell me that was meant to be ironic.

Seriously, what on earth is bias about that article? Next i'm going to her Sara Palin's Paul Rever comment's are CNN's fault.
Since someone has already called me out for satire, I'll admit that those posts were not meant seriously.

But contrast it with some of the other opinions in this thread like "I don't trust the media whatsoever. In my experiences they lie and when they are wrong they do not admit it. They just stop talking about the subject and hope everyone FORGETS but I do not forget because I pay serious attention to what they say. I have lost trust and faith in the media myself." If these people don't trust the media, where are they getting their information? Do they do their own investigations into the subjects being discussed? Maybe they are in contact with the events and people that are being reported on. Do they accept other forms of media, but don't count those as media because their concept of media excludes sources that they agree with and are comfortable with? That concept is reinforced with the phrase of "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." in which distrusted sources are permitted to confirm their beliefs, despite never being able to refute the same.

Maybe those people will come forth and confirm their posts as satire.

Nushif
June 14, 2011, 01:37 AM
Internal consistency is for noobs.

That being said I don't see much "liberal bias" in the post ... Anything that is a business magazine by definition can only lean so far left.

kozak6
June 14, 2011, 03:45 AM
Can we get back on topic?

Where is the liberal bias in the original post? Why is it another reason to mistrust the Washington Post?

All of this "rah rah rah worthless evil liberal rag" business doesn't go anywhere.

Sam1911
June 14, 2011, 07:47 AM
what is it in that article thats got folks panties knotted? its not anti nor is it inaccurate or inflammatory.


Exactly. i read the article several times and fail to see what all the excitement is about.


Can we get back on topic?

Where is the liberal bias in the original post? Why is it another reason to mistrust the Washington Post?


Very good point. Even the NRA press release quoted by the OP doesn't attack the WP, only re-tells the story they reported, as illustrative that it supports OUR side.

The title of this thread seems quite incorrect. The original article doesn't mention -- at all -- guns coming from the US, or even mention the US at all, except as a destination for drugs.

Look at yourselves! The number of posters here who chimed in -- OBVIOUSLY not having read the article -- is surprising, even though I'd have believed myself to be inured to outrage over that kind of laziness. Knee-jerk, bandwagon reationism sure makes us look smart. *sigh*

If you enjoyed reading about "Another reason to mistrust the Washington Post" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!