Well that's a little bit mean, isn't it?
Interesting, you can intimate or even state ignorance of somebody else, but when you demonstrate it yourself and are called on the deck for it, you cry foul.
It's also just slightly illogical, because you are comparing to different things: An accusation of a reporter's possible ignorance about guns when he was there and reports on war and fighting (and that kind of ignorance is avoidable), and an accusation of a message board poster's ignorance about what happened in a faraway country when he has to rely on a reporter's reporting (and that ignorance is unavoidable, because of course I wasn't there, so I have to make conclusions based on what the reporter tells me, and thus we get to the debate about "bursts").
Got it, two different things. The first is a topic distant to the reporter's knowledge and the second is a topic geographically distant to you. Either way, neither of you necessarily has the knowledge base to properly discuss the subject. In short, you picked a really bad example and didn't realize it.
I was using the story to illustrate a broader trend of general ignorance in news reporting about guns, something we've all seen numerous times.
Yes, I can see you work in the industry.
The way the sentence was written, with the reporter talking about "heavy shooting" from government forces in the beginning of the sentence, indicates that the reporter actually heard automatic firing (probably AKs). But that is neither here nor there.
This is what I love about folks who know better what is going on than the person there. You have decided the reporter was ignorant without knowing the information first hand. In other words, you are ignorant of the specific situation being reported.
The larger point is very valid. Working here at the two newspapers I edit for, I regularly have to correct gun ignorance among news reporters (and other editors). You probably wouldn't be too surprised at how many "assault rifles" I have had to delete from stories about semi-automatic rifles.
The larger point may be valid, but your example here failed. You should have picked a story dealing with a specific fact that you could actually verify, and hence not be ignorant about the original data.
Interesting that you are some sort of editor. From your OP...
I also regularly find reporters write or say "semi-automatic pistol," when the "semi-automatic" is, for the most part, not needed, but it must sound more frightening that way in their minds.
While this might be an interesting seque to some, it really has nothing to do with reporter ignorance. "Semi-auto" may not be needed, but that isn't because the reporter is ignorant about guns and the information is incorrect. What you apparently don't realize is that a revolver is also considered a pistol. There are also single shot and multi-barrel pistols. "Pistol" is synonymous with "handgun."
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FirearmsGlossary/
I don't know how you shoot the bad guys if you take the trigger out...