Proposition 63 in California: Extremely poor journalism

[orpington]

I just don't quite understand why, time and time again, journalists cannot discuss firearms related terms properly, when, surely, they discuss topics they are not familiar with time and time again and seem to get them mostly correct, and yet, when it comes to firearms, they simply cannot! I guess, without sounding too political, the media tends to be so left wing that they are uncomfortable discussing the topic, or even researching it to get it right. For example, I heard today on the radio, when Proposition 63 in California was discussed, limiting firearms to "10 rounds of bullets". Indeed, a round is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a unit of ammunition consisting of the parts necessary to fire one shot". Therefore, 10 rounds of bullets is totally incorrect, and even saying 10 rounds of ammunition would be redundant, but could be construed as clarifying the definition of round, as there are many. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/round

Not sure why the media can never seem to get this one right.

 

[RX-79G]

I see what you're saying, but that bit of inexact nomenclature doesn't distort the underlying meaning being communicated. Sure, the law actually has nothing to say about duplex ammo loaded in a ten round mag, but that isn't anything anybody is actually concerned about.

Like many abused words, everyone is going to understand "rounds of bullets" as it was intended.

 

[Jason_W]

The media gets a lot of things wrong all the time. We're just close to 2A related issues so we notice them the most.

There are probably a handful of devoted anti gun journalists out there, but as someone who did a stint as a newspaper reporter, I would put a good amount of money that most inaccurate information about guns in the media is not the result of a liberal conspiracy, but good old fashioned laziness and disengagement.

Journalism is pretty awful field to be in. The pay is terrible, the hours are long, deadline pressure is constant, and there is a push now to be first and sensational over accurate.

So, while many of you see a left wing media conspiracy, I just see some poor schlub working for peanuts, hating every second of every day, and regretting every mistake and poor decision that lead up to this being his profession.

 

[danez71]

I just don't quite understand why, time and time again, journalists cannot discuss firearms related terms properly, when, surely, they discuss topics they are not familiar with time and time again and seem to get them mostly correct, and yet, when it comes to firearms, they simply cannot! I guess, without sounding too political, the media tends to be so left wing that they are uncomfortable discussing the topic, or even researching it to get it right. For example, I heard today on the radio, when Proposition 63 in California was discussed, limiting firearms to "10 rounds of bullets". Indeed, a round is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a unit of ammunition consisting of the parts necessary to fire one shot". Therefore, 10 rounds of bullets is totally incorrect, and even saying 10 rounds of ammunition would be redundant, but could be construed as clarifying the definition of round, as there are many. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/round

Not sure why the media can never seem to get this one right.

You must not have heard them use "clip magazines" before...? That one gets me more.


I'm more concerned with the grossly inaccurate and misleading reporting that Prop 63 reduce the rate of murders caused by being shot by a murderer.

But hey.... since CA AG Kamala Harris will soon be in Washington, then possibly to the US AG after Lynch leaves, or nominated to SCOTUS... there will be a push to another AWB and then whole country will be safer with 10 round max mags. You just have to look for the silver lining.

 

[Lafitte]

When a journalist writes on a subject in totoal ignorance it usually comes out like someone in the second grade was the writer.

Lafitte

 

[PowerG]

Most journalists know more about writing than the subjects they write about.

 

[Jim K]

Many "journalists" are simply ignorant; some city-bred reporters have never seen a gun except on a police officer's hip and they associate those guns with tales of police shooting down innocent people. But that means they are both ignorant and biased, a dangerous combination for anyone but especially one who eagerly proclaims his or her "expertise" to the world. So we are told that "assault rifles" are machineguns, capable of firing thousands of bullets in an instant, tearing through the bodies of innocent children, slaughtering millions of innocent people, used only by right wing extremists and Nazis, to kill loving Marxists, etc., etc. And when every paper, every TV program, every magazine, repeats the same line, it is bound to have an effect. Even those who recognize the insanity of the writers and editors behind that nonsense believe that there must be some truth; after all, who could seriously object to banning guns (or killing Jews, or cancelling elections, or abolishing Congress) or whatever "noble cause" the extremist left is espousing at the moment.

Jim

 

[Open Carry Jenkins]

I work in media--not just firearms related media, but across a broad swath of it.

There are a couple of things going on here. First, like anything semi-technical, firearms are difficult for the various modes of media to cover well as it involves a fair amount of knowledge and experience they don't have time to acquire. "Common knowledge" isn't a thing that one can rely upon; it's limited by a great many cultural and circumstantial factors.

So yes: take consumer media--particular soundbite-oriented TV news--with a grain of salt on this and anything else of any complexity.

Secondly, we have to face th fact that there's a huge amount of disinformation going around about guns. It's not simple to convert AK-pattern rifles to full auto, 5.56 is not an especially high-powered round, GLOCK pistols are mostly steel and definitely show up on metal detectors, etc. I've had to explain all of this to people (chiefly in bars, because I'm really smart in choosing my time and place to engage).

My suggestion is that when you catch an error like this you send the editor or reporter a well written and polite email explaining the error and the correction. Most of these folks do want to get it right.

 

[LiveLife]

Good points.

When we need to be very specific (especially for reloading/handloading discussions):

• cartridge is better than bullet to indicate a loaded round
• projectile is better than bullet to indicate component of a round

 

[GBExpat]

The quality of journalism in the US has been spotty & poor ... forever ... but it seems to me to be getting worse over the past few decades. Perhaps not so much worse, as more damaging to the society.

Ignorance, political taint, subjectivity, personal agendas, political correctness, entertainment value, metrics/ratings, etc. all work to degrade what could, potentially (wishfully?), be a noble profession. Alas.

It concerns me that not enough folks are pondering/questioning the information that they are being fed by the various media sources and are, instead, just happily lapping it up.

OK, I'm done on that subject ... off now to clean out the gutters before the rain ...

 

[Dog Soldier]

I think most people unfamiliar with firearms see ammunition as "Bullets". It is like calling a the semi auto an "Automatic Weapon? News reporters tend to be graduated from college in the lower 10% in scholastic achievements.

 

[splattergun]

Actually, they don't accurately report on topics they don't understand. Another hobby of mine is beekeeping; and the misinformation about bees in the news is abysmal. No different than reporting about guns, agenda-driven and nothing else. THey only write what they think they know and rarely let facts get in the way of what they believe. Fact verification? Source vetting?

Are you kidding?!

 

[jmr40]

This sums it up;

“I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.”

Frank Lloyd Wright quotes (

 

[jmace57]

We had a shooting incident here in Houston a few weeks ago a couple of miles from my house. It was on the national news. Here's a link to one of the many stories: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/us/houston-shooting/

I read an article the next day in the Houston Chronicle and the writer said that the shooter had a Thompson machine gun in his car. I sent an email to the writer that it was a Thompson semi-automatic replica. The writer almost immediately contacted me back, and said he knew that, but that his editor had forced him to change the language and call it a "machine gun". He then said to look in the paper the next day, and there was a correction to the effect that it was semi-auto. Of course, a front-page story one day...and a 2nd page (1" x 2") correction the next day. I give the writer credit - it was obvious that his editor had an agenda - he seemed pleased that I had contacted him about it. After 45 years of reading the Chronicle, I have about decided to cancel my subscription as it has become so left-leaning.

 

[CapnMac]

when, surely, they discuss topics they are not familiar with time and time again and seem to get them mostly correct,

Here is the nub of it. The above supposition cannot be supported factually.

In fact, it is nearly a case of proving a negative.

Doubters may simply refer to the panoply of "sports journalism" out there to find a world of inaccuracy.

 

[wojownik]

"Sports journalism" is by and large an oxymoron. While the onus is strong on sportswriters to use the correct sports terms, the content itself is full of editorializing, agendas and bias. And this is the problem with journalistic coverage of anything do with firearms. I don't really care whether they don't get things like bullet/round/cartridge case correct. I do care when the editorial agenda corrupts the integrity of of an article, or tries to score unbalanced political points.

However, words do have meaning. And some terms are (I'd argue) more critical than others. Assault weapon vs. assault rifle. Calling anything that is not a bolt action an "assault weapon." Semiautomatic vs. automatic. Such errors and ambiguities (n many cases intentionally used) do not help better inform the public. Quite the opposite, and again in numerous cases this may be intentional.

Also, the unvetted use of the slogans and jingoism of the anti crowd. I regularly see references and even calls for "common sense gun control" inserted into articles, without even the slightest effort to define what this amorphous term really means.

 

[jbmillard]

I just don't quite understand why, time and time again, journalists cannot discuss firearms related terms properly, when, surely, they discuss topics they are not familiar with time and time again ...

This is why we'll lose. Shooters cannot seem to get it through their heads that they don't want to get it right. They DO NOT CARE. Time and time again, shooters want to convince them of what is right. For the most part, liberals are incapable of thinking like we do (short of a life changing event).

Maybe if you bake them cookies they'll come around to our way of thinking...

 

[Zoogster]

Most people don't even cover it in entirety.
It includes background checks yes, a serious problem for many reason. Not least of all that you will no longer be able to order online in California, so not only do you lose out on the savings but if you have guns in calibers not stocked at the local gun stores good luck feeding them. Limiting you to only common calibers.
Additionally a lot of stores that don't sell guns may stop selling ammunition if it requires a background check. In California Walmart stopped selling guns long ago because the background check procedure violations got them into trouble and they clearly don't feel its worth it in the state anymore. The same is likely to happen to ammo.
Will it be an additional cost? Go in to purchase a box of .22 to plink and have to pay for a background check? That will make purchases of anything other than bulk quantities of ammo significantly more expensive.

It also sounds like it includes lots of new funding for the disarmament team to go around and take guns from those that become prohibited.
California has a lot more small things that prohibit someone than just what does at the federal level.

It definitely seems to be a new part of the anti-gun strategy in California to ban the person if you can't ban the gun. The federal government says people have the 2nd unless they are prohibited? Well then we need more prohibited persons! While at the same time on the ballot we have a bill to make it easier for people of non violent felonies to get out of jail or prison. Well if you don't really believe someone deserves to be in jail for very long for a crime then maybe their crime shouldn't even be considered a felony and label them a felon for life. That is like acknowledging it should be a misdemeanor but instead of making it one you just give it the sentence of a misdemeanor.
I know people that have been forced by the court to temporarily turn in their guns over things like custody disputes with various accusations by the other side.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

The major problem with journalism today is that the media, in general, have abandoned simply reporting facts in favor of advocacy journalism. They are more intent on skewing the story to fit the agenda than accurate reporting.

In the past, this type of advocacy journalism was balanced to some extent as, in the case of newspapers, you had both conservative and liberal points of view that would be championed by competing newspapers.

Today, however, you no longer really have independent newspapers as they have nearly all been acquired by a media conglomerate like Gannett, while broadcast news is controlled by the Walt Disney Company, Time-Warner (CNN, Turner), CBS Corporation, VIACOM, Clear Channel (1,000 radio stations), Rupert Murdoch (Fox), NBC-Universal (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Universal Pictures, etc.).

In 1983, the media was controlled by 50 companies giving a broader spectrum of views. But today, your news is being filtered through the political and social opinion of the owner, which for the most part, is liberal or even progressive.

I gave up on accurate reporting the day the vaunted New York Times identified the State of New Mexico as Arizona in an article which they illustrated with an equally inaccurate map that accompanied the article.

If you can't get basic USA geography and history correct, I don't have much hope for something that requires understanding of technical information.

 

[GBExpat]

... Maybe if you bake them cookies they'll come around to our way of thinking...

???