Local newspaper idiots.
- Thread starter Echo23TC
- Start date
- Status
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Journalists are supposed to report the facts in an unbiased manner I am told.
When was this ever done?
When I ran for office many years ago the local birdcage liner Palm Beach Post interviewed all the candidates and reported on their positions. I answered my questions short and to the point.
When the article came out it seemed to me I must have been in another room because what they wrote was not even close to how I answered the questions.
When a friend ran in the 2000 election he was interviewed also. But he took a tape recorder into the interview room and asked to record the meeting to make sure the facts were reported correctly.
The so-called journalists refused his request.
As a jack-of-all-trades, reporters should know better you would think.
But how does that saying go,
"Jack of all trades, master of none".
The NY Times scandal is just a small example of how journalism is really conducted.
Do this, watch the evening news or read the newspaper for two to three days. Then actually research the stories. I guarantee at least a third will have wrong "facts" reported.
When was this ever done?
When I ran for office many years ago the local birdcage liner Palm Beach Post interviewed all the candidates and reported on their positions. I answered my questions short and to the point.
When the article came out it seemed to me I must have been in another room because what they wrote was not even close to how I answered the questions.
When a friend ran in the 2000 election he was interviewed also. But he took a tape recorder into the interview room and asked to record the meeting to make sure the facts were reported correctly.
The so-called journalists refused his request.
As a jack-of-all-trades, reporters should know better you would think.
But how does that saying go,
"Jack of all trades, master of none".
The NY Times scandal is just a small example of how journalism is really conducted.
Do this, watch the evening news or read the newspaper for two to three days. Then actually research the stories. I guarantee at least a third will have wrong "facts" reported.
standingbear
Member
wow..the perfect gun has finally arrived to shoot those pesky ants hanging around our sink.the fly swatter is too messy and ant hotels filled with poison..just too unsightly.does it come in chrome?
FPrice
Member
Echo23TC...
"Think about that for a second. .25 millimeter. Get out a ruler and look at it. Does that seem WRONG, perhaps?"
Yes, it is wrong, but I think it is not big enough to get ruffled over.
Better you should worry about correcting stuff like claims that guns accidentally kill 10-12 children a day or that so-called "assault weapons" are more dangerous than other guns.
"Think about that for a second. .25 millimeter. Get out a ruler and look at it. Does that seem WRONG, perhaps?"
Yes, it is wrong, but I think it is not big enough to get ruffled over.
Better you should worry about correcting stuff like claims that guns accidentally kill 10-12 children a day or that so-called "assault weapons" are more dangerous than other guns.
Andrew Rothman
Member
I know that slagging on Democrats, police officers and journalists is a popular pastime here. There are certainly many cases of anti-gun prejudice finding its way onto news pages.
This just isn't one of those cases.
This was a mistake. It makes the writer look kind of dumb to those of us who know better, but that's all. She wrote "mm" in the place of "caliber."
There are positive things you can do. Offer to help them increase their accuracy. Be a counter-influence to the Brady Bunch by making yourself available for comments.
Or you could sit here and disparage all journalists as liars on the basis of one small-town reporter making an easy mistake.
Your choice.
Matt
This just isn't one of those cases.
This was a mistake. It makes the writer look kind of dumb to those of us who know better, but that's all. She wrote "mm" in the place of "caliber."
There are positive things you can do. Offer to help them increase their accuracy. Be a counter-influence to the Brady Bunch by making yourself available for comments.
Or you could sit here and disparage all journalists as liars on the basis of one small-town reporter making an easy mistake.
Your choice.
Matt
geegee
Member
I don't think so. I agree with your point that we should all be willing to cut someone some slack, and surely all who post here make mistakes daily, for which we'd like to experience some grace.
Here's the problem, however. This one reporter's mistake doesn't amount to much in the greater "gun control" argument, but every stinkin' day there are erroneous reports about gun use, children killing children, mis-named firearms of every type imaginable (and most are close to being imagined), and other inflammatory "reporting" that has lead to most all of us made to feel as though we are societal freaks, because we own firearms.
Do you think this reporter has it in her to ever file a report which would show the benefit of firearm ownership? Should we ever hope that any of your ilk will ever report for example, that "Last night, a single mother of two used a pistol to defend herself and her children from an assailant. She never had to fire a shot, but their would-be attacker fled the scene when confronted by a woman who was legally carrying a pistol, and obviously knew how to use it?" Can you imagine which paper or magazine, or TV station would ever run that report?
I'm sure you think that too many of us are already piling on, but when it comes to gun reporting and the media, you folks have been getting it wrong for years, and with no accountability whatsoever. geegee
MPayne is on the right track. Reporters, particularly in small communities, lack technical knowledge in most areas, including the world of firearms. .25 millimeter obviously should have been .25 caliber.
However, since most journalists have left-of-center leanings, journalists don't let facts get in the way of a good firearms related story, or omit critical facts when firearms were used by citzens to "persuade" a derranged gunman to drop his weapon and give up.
It was clear after the Appalachian Law School shooting in Southwest Virginia, that journalists will avoid reporting about guns in a positive light at all costs. If they can't spin the facts to suit their particular left-wing agenda, they just omit them. To the best of my knowledge, the Richmond Times Dispatch was the only major newspaper that didn't omit the fact that the crazed gunman was disarmed at gunpoint by armed citizens, and not just tackled, as had been reported by all the major networks and nearly all newspapers.
A few days after the shooting at the Appalachian Law School, I asked a VERY anti-gun left-wing friend of mine why he thought that key facts were omitted from nearly all coverage of the story. In a nutshell, his response was, "It's just not that important."
BINGO. Immediately I understood. Facts that make guns look like they have a mind of their own, going off and committing mass murder against helpless, unarmed victims are IMPORTANT facts. Facts that put guns in a positive perspective, such as the disarming of the Appalachian Law School shooter, are just "not important."
Needless to say, now I have a deep distrust of journalists in general, particularly journalists pushing a mostly left-wing political agenda. One should stick to the facts when writing, and leave out any political slant or bias. Too bad most journalists don't adhere to this.
However, since most journalists have left-of-center leanings, journalists don't let facts get in the way of a good firearms related story, or omit critical facts when firearms were used by citzens to "persuade" a derranged gunman to drop his weapon and give up.
It was clear after the Appalachian Law School shooting in Southwest Virginia, that journalists will avoid reporting about guns in a positive light at all costs. If they can't spin the facts to suit their particular left-wing agenda, they just omit them. To the best of my knowledge, the Richmond Times Dispatch was the only major newspaper that didn't omit the fact that the crazed gunman was disarmed at gunpoint by armed citizens, and not just tackled, as had been reported by all the major networks and nearly all newspapers.
A few days after the shooting at the Appalachian Law School, I asked a VERY anti-gun left-wing friend of mine why he thought that key facts were omitted from nearly all coverage of the story. In a nutshell, his response was, "It's just not that important."
BINGO. Immediately I understood. Facts that make guns look like they have a mind of their own, going off and committing mass murder against helpless, unarmed victims are IMPORTANT facts. Facts that put guns in a positive perspective, such as the disarming of the Appalachian Law School shooter, are just "not important."
Needless to say, now I have a deep distrust of journalists in general, particularly journalists pushing a mostly left-wing political agenda. One should stick to the facts when writing, and leave out any political slant or bias. Too bad most journalists don't adhere to this.
I barely squeaked by in high school English yet I find grammatical errors in the local paper all the time.
In fact, I quit taking the local rag for a couple of reasons:
The place where I work is in the news often because of a planned expansion. Every time I would read an article dealing with the company I would find numerous misquotes and errors in facts and figures. Sure made me wonder about the articles I read that I had no inside knowledge of.
Add to that the editors leftist beliefs that came through on every page from page one to the comics and I just couldn't take it anymore.
I mean the staff didn't just lean to the left, they had an extreme Port list!
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Having seen the inner workings of a television news room, I've got to side with Matt on this one. Not only are reporters expected to cover stories on a myriad of topics, they are also expected to have said story completed in an extremely short period of time.
Matt is right, that is the nature of the biz. Even assuming a reporter was completely unbiased wouldn't change the fact that they're bound to make mistakes on topics they don't know anything about.
Where the problem really arises is that so many people willingly believe so much of what they are told via the newspaper or television. It seems that many people don't have the critical thinking skills needed to be able to dissect a story and filter it through their own perceptions. They simply swallow it whole.
And I'm not seeing much that is likely to change the situation. In order to do that, you'd need pro-rights individuals to look into becoming journalists, or at least offer themselves as quotable sources. At the very least, you could offer to take a reporter to the range on one of their days off.
Matt is right, that is the nature of the biz. Even assuming a reporter was completely unbiased wouldn't change the fact that they're bound to make mistakes on topics they don't know anything about.
Where the problem really arises is that so many people willingly believe so much of what they are told via the newspaper or television. It seems that many people don't have the critical thinking skills needed to be able to dissect a story and filter it through their own perceptions. They simply swallow it whole.
And I'm not seeing much that is likely to change the situation. In order to do that, you'd need pro-rights individuals to look into becoming journalists, or at least offer themselves as quotable sources. At the very least, you could offer to take a reporter to the range on one of their days off.
Bobe --
Probably because the police report said something like, "The student arrived at school with a .25 Lorcin handgun..." and the reporter had to fill in the blanks.
***************
One of the many reasons that journalists "always" get it wrong on guns is because the only people taking Matt's advice in his first post are people who support HCI and the MMM.
But it's a lot more fun to gripe than to get off your butt and do something useful for your RKBA.
pax
Probably because the police report said something like, "The student arrived at school with a .25 Lorcin handgun..." and the reporter had to fill in the blanks.
***************
One of the many reasons that journalists "always" get it wrong on guns is because the only people taking Matt's advice in his first post are people who support HCI and the MMM.
But it's a lot more fun to gripe than to get off your butt and do something useful for your RKBA.
pax
Andrew Rothman
Member
My forehead is starting to ache from banging it against this brick wall here, so I'll say this briefly, one more time.
SOME JOURNALISTS SHOW BIAS; THIS ONE DIDN'T. SOME MAY DELIBERATELY DISTORT FACTS. THIS ONE DIDN'T. FIREARM CALIBER IS PRETTY ESOTERIC TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SHE GOT IT WRONG. THERE IS NO WAY TO INTERPRET THIS MISTAKE AS A PURPOSEFUL ANTI-GUN DISTORTION.
As for the nasty cracks about "your ilk," I said I WORKED, past tense, for a newspaper. At the time, I had no interest in or knowledge in firearms. I occasionally covered cop stories. And I stand behind every word I wrote. I made an effort to get it right.
And you know what? Most reporters do.
(The management, on the other hand...)
So go ahead and lump all reporters together if that's the extent of your intelligence and imagination. After all, you like it fine when people lump all those fanatical murdering gun nuts together, right?
Matt
SOME JOURNALISTS SHOW BIAS; THIS ONE DIDN'T. SOME MAY DELIBERATELY DISTORT FACTS. THIS ONE DIDN'T. FIREARM CALIBER IS PRETTY ESOTERIC TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SHE GOT IT WRONG. THERE IS NO WAY TO INTERPRET THIS MISTAKE AS A PURPOSEFUL ANTI-GUN DISTORTION.
As for the nasty cracks about "your ilk," I said I WORKED, past tense, for a newspaper. At the time, I had no interest in or knowledge in firearms. I occasionally covered cop stories. And I stand behind every word I wrote. I made an effort to get it right.
And you know what? Most reporters do.
(The management, on the other hand...)
So go ahead and lump all reporters together if that's the extent of your intelligence and imagination. After all, you like it fine when people lump all those fanatical murdering gun nuts together, right?
Matt
Now? What took you so long?
Matt, I don't disagree that this was an error, not bias, but it doesn't take any expertise in firearms to simply report what you are told, and AVOID FILLING IN THE BLANKS. I'm not an expert in noooKleer fisics, but I can at least tell you what the PhD said without adding my own 2 cents in.
That only takes decent reporting.
geegee
Member
Great. But let's clarify something: It's not that some journalists show bias (where gun stories are concerned), it's that the overwhelming majority of journalists for years have been playing fast and loose with the truth, mis-stating facts, and applying their own liberal, anti-gun editorial slant where any gun related stories have a chance of appearing.
That's nasty? Please.
Thank you for that. When and where that happens, it's greatly appreciated.
And I couldn't be more sincere.
Where gun related stories are concerned? No they don't. Not if there's the slightest chance the truth will portray a gun owner as a responsible citizen, with the possibility of being shown in a good light. None of us should expect to be seen as a white knight in shining armor just because we own firearms, but neither should we be vilified for that either.
My intelligence and imagination are such that I've been able to recognize the anti gun bias in the media for years. Anyone smarter than a bag of hammers could do the same, and I'm at least that smart.
I don't like it when people unfairly exhibit a prejudice against any group for any reason, but the media in this country have done so for years where gun owners are concerned and I'm sick of it. I own guns, regularly shoot guns, and regret not having more guns.
I'm not part of the problem and in all honesty Mpayne, I doubt that you are either. Unfortunately, you've identified yourself to be a gun owning former member of a group that regularly paints you, me and the rest of our ilk (
) as psychopathic nuts that should expect to be mistrusted because of the things we own, as opposed to the behavior we display. Please don't think I meant this to be an attack on you personally, because I surely didn't. All the best, geegeeAndrew Rothman
Member
Media bias is a fascinating and complex field of study. While I can't argue that the media disproportionately reports on "bad" gun stories over good ones, there are layers to this that need to be dissected.
But first, let me say that this thread had a schizophrenic feel to it. It seems like a lot of folks are projecting all the perceived evils of journalists as a whole onto poor Polly Podunk who wrote the story that started the thread. That's unfair. We have no evidence or suspicion that she's anything but ignorant about the terminology around English and metric calibers.
So why does the press come across as anti-gun? Is it a conspiracy?
No.
Well, not usually.
The Exception:
I know there are instances where news media management sets the agenda of the paper. This comes out in which stories are assigned reportorial coverage (there are many more potential news stories in a day than the ones given coverage). It can also appear in the way a reporter's story is edited for publication. (By the way, didya know that a well-meaning but ignorant COPY EDITOR may have "fixed" poor Polly's story, changing "caliber" to "millimeter"? I've had it happen to me!
The Rule:
Newsworthiness. It's one little word, but it's a big one. Here's one publication's list of the elements of newsworthiness. I've added a high-to-low example:
For TV, I'll add the biggest one: "Do we have good video?"
So here's the reality: A defensive gun use typically isn't newsworthy, unless a) it's a really small town where any attempted crime at all is news, b) someone gets shot or c) Britney Spears was the gunslinger.
Why are gun stories overwhelmingly negative? Because the legal ownership and use of 100 million guns in this country is largely uneventful.
As I've seen on this site, when a gun owner takes a shot at a bad guy, it makes the news. A gas station robbery in Missouri was covered this week -- the bad guy and the station clerk each had a shotgun, it is unknown whether the BG was hit...
There was nothing anti-gun about that story either.
Here's what I think is really going on. 90% of everyone are sheeple. That includes reporters. (Well, maybe 95% of them!) They have been told all their lives that guns are bad. They see in the newspaper that when guns are used, people get hurt. It becomes their reality and colors their perception of the world.
Our mission, should we decide to accept it, is to change that perception on the part of store owners, politicians and yes, journalists. Until we do -- and it's an uphill battle -- we'll see more unintentional ignorance of guns and their lawful owners.
Matt
But first, let me say that this thread had a schizophrenic feel to it. It seems like a lot of folks are projecting all the perceived evils of journalists as a whole onto poor Polly Podunk who wrote the story that started the thread. That's unfair. We have no evidence or suspicion that she's anything but ignorant about the terminology around English and metric calibers.
So why does the press come across as anti-gun? Is it a conspiracy?
No.
Well, not usually.
The Exception:
I know there are instances where news media management sets the agenda of the paper. This comes out in which stories are assigned reportorial coverage (there are many more potential news stories in a day than the ones given coverage). It can also appear in the way a reporter's story is edited for publication. (By the way, didya know that a well-meaning but ignorant COPY EDITOR may have "fixed" poor Polly's story, changing "caliber" to "millimeter"? I've had it happen to me!
The Rule:
Newsworthiness. It's one little word, but it's a big one. Here's one publication's list of the elements of newsworthiness. I've added a high-to-low example:
For TV, I'll add the biggest one: "Do we have good video?"
So here's the reality: A defensive gun use typically isn't newsworthy, unless a) it's a really small town where any attempted crime at all is news, b) someone gets shot or c) Britney Spears was the gunslinger.
Why are gun stories overwhelmingly negative? Because the legal ownership and use of 100 million guns in this country is largely uneventful.
As I've seen on this site, when a gun owner takes a shot at a bad guy, it makes the news. A gas station robbery in Missouri was covered this week -- the bad guy and the station clerk each had a shotgun, it is unknown whether the BG was hit...
There was nothing anti-gun about that story either.
Here's what I think is really going on. 90% of everyone are sheeple. That includes reporters. (Well, maybe 95% of them!) They have been told all their lives that guns are bad. They see in the newspaper that when guns are used, people get hurt. It becomes their reality and colors their perception of the world.
Our mission, should we decide to accept it, is to change that perception on the part of store owners, politicians and yes, journalists. Until we do -- and it's an uphill battle -- we'll see more unintentional ignorance of guns and their lawful owners.
Matt
Agreed!
But that ignorance is the norm, and it has, in most cases, its origin in the bias that geegee is talking about. Reporters certainly can't be experts on every subject - we don't expect them to be. But guns are a very common theme in the news. Why don't more reporters know more about this VERY common and NEWSWORTHY subject? Let's run this by again, slowly:
The media in general considers shootings to be very important, very newsworthy. The report on shootings a LOT. They HAMMER the subject. So why don't they get better educated on this very important subject?
Because they don't consider facts about it to be important. They despise guns and gun owners, and deep down in their tiny little brains, they know the facts are not on their side.
As to conspiracy, whether there is one or not might depend on your definition of conspiracy. If you allow that a conspiracy can exist where different people share a common ideology, and where those same people get their information from the same sources, and therefore act in concert without having spoken directly to each other and agreed on a course of action, then YES, there is a conspiracy.
And from time to time, there is actual conspiracy among the big media on major news events.
geegee
Member
I'm not trying to mix the threads here, but coincidentally here's a timely example that veered into some of this ones discussion of TV media bias:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40933
geegee
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40933
geegee
Andrew Rothman
Member
More likely that bias is the norm, based on ignorance.
- Status