Los Angeles Times blogger makes fool of herself

Status
Not open for further replies.
that's not what I mean at all. Someone confuses a rifle and a shot gun. if you say "haha, actually that's a shotgun, and yes it's safe because the breech is open and her finger is off the trigger," you'll get a good response, but if you say "That's obviously a F***ing shotgun you stupid liberal piece of SH*T!" then you make yourself look irrational and angry and violent.
 
Maybe we should be reading for substance instead of for shock value?
Click to expand...

Look, a journalist is supposed to do at least a tiny bit of background fact checking. She didn't do that, hence she looses all credibility.

Some folks may not know the difference between rifles and shotguns, and that is fine.

Then again, some people think whales and dolphins are fish.

Both cases, 'whatever' these people don't work with dolphins or rifles, so their ignorance doesn't matter.

However, any journalist who refers to dolphins and whales as fish automatically looses all credibility, because even the stuff that sounds good should now be called into question.
 
Maybe we should be reading for substance instead of for shock value?
Click to expand...

When people leap on a premise and sprawl to a conclusion how much substance can they have?

This 'blogger' used a wealth of inaccuracies then used the collection to support an opinion. There is an old saying 'you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.' Expecting substance in this case requires a deliberate suspension of disbelief.
 
First, I'm not trying to defend the author.

Second, the whale/dolphin analogy is weak at best. Marine mammals are easier to identify for most people that don't go to the ocean or care about aquatic life. I myself had a hard time realizing the picture was of an over-under for about a minute until I read a reply that said it was - went back and double-check, looked close, and yeah, it was. I couldn't tell you more than that about the gun, though. And I'm a gunny.

Third, the point I'm trying to make is, read the post for what it was - a valid question of whether or not it was fair for Newsweek to print a cover picture of a national office-seeker that could skew your read of the article within.

I mean, really, the comment was funny, but is it really THAT funny? She works for the LA Times, for Pete's sake. I don't know if you're aware, but that's a pretty liberal newspaper, and they don't have a lot of staff that are shooters or advocates for gun rights. (I know, it's a shocker.)
 
I mean, really, the comment was funny, but is it really THAT funny? She works for the LA Times, for Pete's sake.
Click to expand...

Who's comment was funny? Hers or most of the other comments on her blog?

We need a good dose of humor once in a while around here to refresh and invigorate us IMO...
 
I saw this comment posted below the blog

You're dead wrong, Stace. Everybody and his dawg knows that she's holding an atomic howitzer capable of lobbing a 155mm cobalt-enhanced warhead from Alaska to a target in California, wiping out all intelligent life. (Unless of course the target is a newspaper office, in which case the effort would be superfluous.)
Click to expand...

Very funny!
 
In Palin vs. Hollyweird I found a quote by Babawa Swiesand about how Palin ain't fooling her...

Ha Ha! It's not about getting Clinton voters. It's about getting the base out!

The link was just goofy....
 
wow, STUPID LIBERAL UN-EDUCATED ARROGANT ANTI_GUN LEFT WING COMMIE JOURNALIST....that comment mentioned above is hilarious haha!


p.s. vote McCain
 
Posted by: tomk | October 08, 2008 at 07:15 PM

Anyone covered the rifle/shotgun fiasco here, basic gun safety, breech loading, and/or mocked the writer for being an idiot?

All that's covered? Damn.

Anyone up for scrabble then?
Click to expand...
Classic.
 
Now I guess the L.A. Times will have to find ten libs to say "Yes, it's a rifle" and "No, you should never carry one like that." That will be the end of it. Next week the reporter will have an opinion of Wall Street.
 
Why are people trying to defend this "journalist?" Or apologize for her inaccuracies?

Listen: If you are a media figure and are going to be snarky, then you better sound intelligent. Bottom line. Otherwise, you are going to leave yourself open to acidic criticism. That goes for anyone in any public forum, and for any social issue.

Think about it. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If a fair number of gun-haters had chimed in to Snead's original, ignorant comment, the response would have emboldened Snead, the LA Times collective stance towards gun-owners (not favorable, by the way), and gun control in general. It would further their agenda.

Acidic criticism from the opposition has negated any chance of that happening. As stinging as some of the gun rights' supporters responses have been, they reek of intolerable and intuitive truths.

Wake up people. We are in a cultural war. Period. We don't have to be knuckle-dragging troglodytes in our fervor of the RKBA. But enough with this milquetoast attitude of empathy and rhetorical pacifism at any cost.

That attitude is not only absurd, but it has been proven numerous times throughout history to be self-defeating. Every time.

Do you think the gay rights movement got where they are today by saying: "Hey, we have to prove to our opponents that we are always masculine and should never act feminine. Because that's the opposite of what they expect."

In other words, you gotta be who you are. You can't change your strategy to over-compensate for what the opposition thinks you are.

Who we are, as gun owners, and as fervent supporters of RKBA, are individuals always capable in engaging in civil discourse; but who will tell it like it is when it has to be so. Sometimes that will be less than genial.

We need to point out their foolishness every time, and that will inevitably be quite often.

By the way, that Elizabeth Snead is HOT. Wow.

And this was my favorite response. Not the funniest, but the most succinct:

""It's funny to watch so-called tolerant libs comment ignorantly about things they aren't tolerant of."" --posted by Toni
 
oh, well...what a massive over reaction to a small comment, hehe...

Really, i see how someone could call that a rifle...seriously.
 
How many of you read the actual article?

Putting aside the asinine comments regarding the firearm she has in hand, did anyone bother to read the thing she was questioning?

Before you all come out again and say I'm defending this idiot, stop, breathe, READ THE ARTICLE in question, which is not written by this same idiot. The article has very little to do with guns, and as was pointed out by one or two of the respondents, it's basically a diatribe about her inexperience, peppered with a few apologies for Palin (hollow overtures to get a more conservative-leaning reader to want to keep reading).

I muddled through the whole thing, and can honestly say that the cover picture is probably a ruse to just sell more magazines. So what? I'd also argue that the idiot blogger (who, by the way, mainly knows about celebrities, not politics or guns, as she has so blatantly shown us) probably has a friend or a colleague or something at Newsweek, or maybe just really respects them.

So I read the rifle gaffe in the blog post as another clever ruse to rile people up and go read the article. It seems it worked in one way, and not in another (got you all riled up, but you didn't read the article).
 
or the fact that many around and above the writer had -no- knowledge of whats in the picture......+1 on no intelligent life at the newspaper office.
but being that she's from alaska, perhaps they all thought it was a double barreled mammoth gun.
 
Time For a Refresher Course Ms. Blogger

Even a "Cub Reporter" - after realizing he or she could not determine exactly what kind of gun Governor Palin was sporting - would have used "firearm" instead.

No wonder subscriptions are down for the L.A. Times; and deservedly so.
 
Bloggers, Editorials etc. all aside....

Bush the Elder did NOT want a second term.

And from where I sit it don't much look like McCain wants ONE!

Sarah is the only reason I haven't totally given up!!!

I'm stocking up on ammo in any case....
 
Wasn't someone telling us recently how journalists try to get it right?

Well obviously, not all of them do, it would appear that not only that, nor do they care. Ms Snead didn't know what type of firearms Governor Palin was holding, and didn't know if she was it holding safely, instead of finding out, she just put it out to the world.

Considering the number of times Journalists attack gun ownership and gun owners, she was rightly and smartly spanked for her screw up.

In typical journo-speak, she's followed this article up with claims it's not her fault and that those who are canning her for her ignorance are treating her unfairly.

In a later blog she states;
"makes me think gosh, maybe gun-owners/lovers really are short-sighted. And maybe even hot-headed and dangerous.

Hey, if the holster fits".
I think it's time people gave up on Ms Snead and started contacting business which advertise in the LA Times.

For what my opinion's worth, her comments about hot-headed and dangerous gun owners identify her as hostile, it's time to do a Zumbo on her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top