Journalistic Language Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig_AR

Craig_AR

Contributing Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Arkansas
Does anyone have any idea how to convince reporters, journalists, editors, commentators, columnists, pundits, news casters, news readers, cheery weather readers who sit next to news readers, etc of ANY the following?

1. Assault rifle is two words, not one ("assaultrifle").

2. Assault rifle refers to scary looks, not functionality, power, accuracy, round capacity, mode of fire, mode of reload, speed of fire, speed of reload, caliber, usable range, or any other aspect of a firearm beyond aesthetic appreciation?

3. Not every rifle is an "assaultrifle" (even acknowledging the silly 'real' definition in #2).

I have YET to see a news report announcing that long guns found, confiscated, used, or suspected are just "rifles." The report is always "assaultrifles."

Sheeesh.

Thank you. Minor rant is over.

craig
 
Last edited:
If it bleeds it leads and the more sensational the better seems to be the norm and to hell with the facts, you'll never change that because all the talking heads are just looking good and following the orders of whoever is in charge in the background feeding whatever they believe will raise the ratings.
I once saw a story on the late news about a guy arrested for threating someone with a gun and the reporter says " as so-n-so was being led away he claimed just wait until I get my 45MM pistol from home" someone added mm to make it sound more threating.
 
My personal opinion, is there isn't a good newspaper left anymore. They are all out there trying to put their own "slant" to a story, to sensationalize it to their system, to sell more papers. Some reporters will violate every law in the books to obtain a story, and print it. Our own morals have gone to H**l in a handbasket.
 
2. Assault rifle refers to scary looks, not functionality, power, accuracy, round capacity, mode of fire, mode of reload, speed of fire, speed of reload, caliber, usable range, or any other aspect of a firearm beyond aesthetic appreciation?
Click to expand...

Don't try to convince them of this. I'm pretty sure "Assault Rifles" are different in that they have the fun selector. "Assault Weapons" is the one commonly applied to scary looking black rifles.
 
/

My personal opinion, is there isn't a good newspaper left anymore. They are all out there trying to put their own "slant" to a story, to sensationalize it to their system, to sell more papers. Some reporters will violate every law in the books to obtain a story, and print it. Our own morals have gone to H**l in a handbasket.
Click to expand...

And I agree. Schools of Journalism in the colleges and universities, are graduating some of the most mindless journalists who are not only ignorant of certain technical issues; but are ignorant of common sense. :what::what::what::eek::eek::eek::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny:

/
 
Last edited:
not to mention "deadly military style bolt rifle",or automatic hi capacty pistol,shot with a hi powered deer rifle,drugs,money and a loaded pistol were recovered. jwr
 
Does anyone have any idea how to convince reporters, journalists, editors, commentators, columnists, pundits, news casters, news readers, cheery weather readers who sit next to news readers, etc of ANY the following?
Click to expand...

Don't subscribe. Don't waste your time watching or listening. The old "news" media is the wave of the past.
 
There is an organization that actually provides training specifically to media personnel at no charge. A day at the range learning the ins and outs of firearms for free.

From my understanding they have a significant problem getting journalists to take them up on their offer. Out of a major city they might have a scant handful willing to learn something that they didn't know before.
 
As someone who has spent more than 20 years in a newspaper editor's seat I take offense at some of the generalizations that have been tossed out here.

Most reporters try to get it right, but they are basically clueless when it comes to firearms. The first newsroom I worked in had 180 editors and reporters and two of us were gun owners.

You need to bear in mind most young reporters come from liberal upper middle class homes. They never work a job in their life until they finish four years of being indoctrinated by a liberal arts institution.

When I was at the first paper I worked at it became known that I was knowledgeable about guns. I was a sports editor, but every time there was a gun crime story the news reporter or editor would come to me for the proper nomenclature for the weapon.

I worked at one paper in rural Idaho where even our female managing editor owned a gun and we never had any issues with proper identification. Now I'm with a magazine and the only gun owner in the building.

It is not that they don't try to get it right. They are simply ignorant.

I can't blame them. I'm ignorant of the parts that make my air conditioning work. I don't know what they are and I don't want to know. That is how they feel about guns.

However, I have found that if you tell them rationally and calmly and explain what the issues are they will do their best to get it right in the future. Their best may not be very good, but if it is not call again. If you develop a rapport invite them out to shoot.

The downside is that very few journalists have ever touched a gun. They depend on a police spokesperson to supply them with the needed information. Chances are that person did not do well at anything else so they made them into a PR person - and they don't do that well either.

Another factor is that all news media sources are trying to cut down on expenses. The newsroom is an expense. Advertising sales people make money. Reporters and editors cost money. For the past 10 years editors and reporters have been forced to do more with fewer resources. That 180-person newsroom I started in is now a 160-person newsroom, but circulation is 25 percent higher. There are more advertising sales people now, though.

A couple more things. Every reporter has a quota of stories they must turn in. Every editor has to put out a full newspaper or news broadcast. Quantity has brought about a drop in quality.

Also, the addition of the Internet has made things more difficult. I don't just edit a magazine anymore. I also publish a Web magazine in addition to my old work.

And we are still expected to beat every other news source with every story. Even though we have fewer reporters and editors and now have to publish Internet sites in addition.

It really is no wonder they don't really worry about what they call a gun.

But, they do want you to watch their broadcast or read their publication so if you talk to them and they feel they may lose some of their audience they will try and do better. They'll try. They probably won't actually do it, but they'll try.
 
It really is no wonder they don't really worry about what they call a gun.
Click to expand...

No offense intended , but I am not convinced that the terms generaly used by the media regarding firearms is unintentional , born out of ignorance of the subject.

You make some good points regarding who, or what type persons, the media consists of however. And also the agenda of profit before all else.
 
Sorry Loop, I'm going to disagree with you on that.

I once contacted a young reporter at a major Melbourne (Aust) newspaper. This lady had just had printed a full page article on "research" into gun misuse that had found most gun related murders in Australia and New Zealand were committed by licenced gun owners using legal firearms.

I asked her why she hadn't told her readers that this "research" was carried out by the founding President of New Zealand's most vocal anti-gun political lobby group?

Her reply "So what, there's only so much you can fit in 20 paragraphs"

I know of two senior reporters for the same newspaper who basically copied and pasted material from a Gun Control Australia media release, without bothering to check if the material was in fact factually correct, it wasn't.

You're right on one thing, news rooms cost money, advertising department's make money. Without advertising, newspapers cannot continue to print lies about guns and gun owners.

If a journalist wrote an unfair article, and, four or five of the largest advertisers received a few hundred letters saying "What was written about gun owners was unfair and untruthful, your advertising dollars paid for this to be distributed, so we won't be using your product in the future" it might change a few attitudes really quick.
 
Nit-picking

Sorry...
First off, the media rarely use the term "assault rifle", which is an actual item, when compared to their use of "assault weapon".

Secondly, it is disheartening to think that they, the media, will continually print information that they either know is inaccurate, or plead ignorance and are unwilling to research for accuracy. No real up-side there that I can see.

Thank you,
p
 
I'm going to disagree with Loop as well. Ignorant about guns or not, a good reporter should be skeptical of "research" that comes from an advocacy group. It seems that these days reporters will take any press release that rolls off their fax machine and print it, as long as it comes from the "right" groups.
 
I'm really not trying to defend journalists, in general, just the good ones...

There are a lot of lazy journalists who will write from a press release just because it is easy. But, bear in mind, that journalists may be under a lot of pressure to turn out more stories than are reasonable in the time allotted.

The editor probably doesn't have the time to check out the sources either.

It is true that many of them have an agenda. That too, is not really their fault. They have been indoctrinated.

The liberal left had their minds to mold for more than 20 years. They will not become enlightened overnight.

What I am trying to express is that they are just people. If you use the same tactics you would use with your next-door-neighbor you are more likely to give their views a nudge in another direction than if you attack their ignorance.

There will be some who you can never move. They have been too indoctrinated by the liberal left.

That is just the way it is, sorry.

Media bias exists to an extreme degree. I am guilty of it myself. Sometimes I make a story reflect my viewpoint more than the source or writer. I try not to, but it happens.

I guess my point really is that is better to try and change the media to be more honest than to gripe about its inadequacies. As far as poor research goes, I can find you 1,000 examples a day.

I edit a business and finance magazine. It's been one H*** of a day. I guarantee you there is someone out there wants to kick my tail. Aside from all the national and international problems I broke a story today that the local county treasurer lost 20 percent of county funds through poor investments.

I'm sorry, but quality of government and poor journalism aren't really on the front burner today.

The hit we took today was three years-worth of inflated prices for land, gas and housing.

The price of land went down. The price of fuel went down. The price of housing went down. The value of the dollar went up...

It is all good. Wall Street has reached the threshold of manipulation and been forced to turn the other way.

This is turning into a rant, sorry.

It's been a tough day...
 
Loop, what is your opinion on why most of the reporters today come from upper middle class, liberal backgrounds? Most of us on the conservative side of things certainly do know how to read and write, so why are there so few reporters from a conservative background? Is it because we wouldn't be accepted into the journalism schools? Or something else? I've been curious about this for some time and you're the first journalist I've found to ask.
 
/

I'm really not trying to defend journalists, in general, just the good ones...-----from Loop
Click to expand...

Let me smack you around a bit on that.......[Just kidding, Loop!]

Seriously Loop, part of the issue with criticizing journalists and then defending the criticism for matters of technical ignorance is that this is the Information Age.

There is information on the Internet for sure, and then we have millions of books. Movies show us all kinds of things. Who doesn't know what an RPG is? Moreover, learning about firearms, can be like learning about Football. It can fascinate. How can one not learn about it?

Considering that journalists buy books and have classes in how to research sources and cite correctly, they need to be held accountable to a rational standard.

If a journalist cannot be held to a rational standard, ....er....um.....who can?:):uhoh::scrutiny:


Come on, jump on the bandwagon and smack'em around a little. (You know you really want to!)

:what:

/
/
 
There are a lot of lazy journalists who will write from a press release just because it is easy. But, bear in mind, that journalists may be under a lot of pressure to turn out more stories than are reasonable in the time allotted.

The editor probably doesn't have the time to check out the sources either.

It is true that many of them have an agenda. That too, is not really their fault. They have been indoctrinated.

The liberal left had their minds to mold for more than 20 years. They will not become enlightened overnight.

What I am trying to express is that they are just people. If you use the same tactics you would use with your next-door-neighbor you are more likely to give their views a nudge in another direction than if you attack their ignorance.

There will be some who you can never move. They have been too indoctrinated by the liberal left.

That is just the way it is, sorry.

Media bias exists to an extreme degree. I am guilty of it myself. Sometimes I make a story reflect my viewpoint more than the source or writer. I try not to, but it happens.

I guess my point really is that is better to try and change the media to be more honest than to gripe about its inadequacies. As far as poor research goes, I can find you 1,000 examples a day.

I edit a business and finance magazine. It's been one H*** of a day. I guarantee you there is someone out there wants to kick my tail. Aside from all the national and international problems I broke a story today that the local county treasurer lost 20 percent of county funds through poor investments.

I'm sorry, but quality of government and poor journalism aren't really on the front burner today.

The hit we took today was three years-worth of inflated prices for land, gas and housing.

The price of land went down. The price of fuel went down. The price of housing went down. The value of the dollar went up...

It is all good. Wall Street has reached the threshold of manipulation and been forced to turn the other way.

This is turning into a rant, sorry.

I'm tired and have to face this economic BS in the AM. I am feeling really old at the moment...
 
loop said:
It is not that they don't try to get it right. They are simply ignorant.

I can't blame them. I'm ignorant of the parts that make my air conditioning work. I don't know what they are and I don't want to know. That is how they feel about guns.
Click to expand...

Well they shouldn't be writing on guns and you shouldn't be writing on air conditioners. :confused: Simple enough, right?

There's a solution to ignorance, and it is a pre-requisite to employing yourself as the spokesperson for the truth on a topic.

It's called research. It may not be fun, but the last time I checked, upholding the duty of one's job wasn't meant to be fun.

I've worked for a newspaper, and I understand how impossible deadlines can be, but in a world where people think newspapers exist to share information and not just sell newspapers, that is unacceptable.
 
It is true that many of them have an agenda. That too, is not really their fault. They have been indoctrinated.
-----LOOP
Click to expand...



What I am trying to express is that they are just people. If you use the same tactics you would use with your next-door-neighbor you are more likely to give their views a nudge in another direction than if you attack their ignorance.---LOOP
Click to expand...

Loop, you are agreeing, more than disagreeing with us.

If journalists were more familiar with facts, rather than personal prejudice, they would be objective.

I understand your point about their humanity; but I only wish to say that I couldn't write in public media for 5 minutes, if I had a The-Truth-Be-Damned attitude.

I don't even have a college education, but I know how to be objective and find sources.

It's been one H*** of a day.---LOOP
Click to expand...

Don't worry Loop. You're still on the "A" team to us.

/:eek::eek::eek:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top