Is it any wonder people distrust the media?

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Read this story on the new SIG MCX upper as reported by Fox News and see if you can count how many laughable, glaring, errors you can find in this article written by “a defense specialist with experience in more than 70 countries who consults at the highest levels of defense and national security, a lawyer with four postgraduate degrees.”

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/09...e-us-special-operations-even-more-deadly.html

The “experts” telling us what to think literally know nothing,
 
That's so cringe-worthy that it's laughable.
Aside from the factual errors and poor writing, I feel like I got dropped into a blender full of corporate buzz words and went for a spin.
 
I don’t see the factual errors you guys are referring to. Sure, the article isn’t terribly well written and there is a typo or two, but I didn’t notice any glaring factual errors. Overall, it’s not all that bad as far as mainstream media gun articles go, other than the awkward phrasing and occasional hyperbole.
 
Does anyone know what is more useless than "...a lawyer with four postgraduate degrees..." ?

(Answer: a lawyer with five postgraduate degrees.)




More seriously, I read this other day and by the end I still couldn't figure out what the bejeeezus they were taking about.

...pure gibberish from start to finish.
 
Theohazard said:
I don’t see the factual errors you guys are referring to. Sure, the article isn’t terribly well written and there is a typo or two, but I didn’t notice any glaring factual errors. Overall, it’s not all that bad as far as mainstream media gun articles go, other than the awkward phrasing and occasional hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Did you click on the link? Let me cite a few lines:

“Sig Sauer has a distinctive looking, revolutionary approach to suppressors. They look nothing like the suppressors you see in movies and TV shows – these rifle suppressors are tubeless. They’ve eliminated the outer tube typically seen with suppressors.

In addition to reducing weight, this tubeless design increases volume, lowering pressure and temperature for greater durability and leading signature reduction.

One of the keys to this feat is the special “baffle” design.”

They then show an MCX with only a flash suppressor and describe it as a “SIG Sauer SBR with silencer.”

You could almost excuse them for being ignorant and confusing a flash suppressor with a sound suppressor; but then they try ti get into some detail discussing silencers.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Did you click on the link? Let me cite a few lines:

“Sig Sauer has a distinctive looking, revolutionary approach to suppressors. They look nothing like the suppressors you see in movies and TV shows – these rifle suppressors are tubeless. They’ve eliminated the outer tube typically seen with suppressors.

In addition to reducing weight, this tubeless design increases volume, lowering pressure and temperature for greater durability and leading signature reduction.

One of the keys to this feat is the special “baffle” design.”

They then show an MCX with only a flash suppressor and describe it as a “SIG Sauer SBR with silencer.”

You could almost excuse them for being ignorant and confusing a flash suppressor with a sound suppressor; but then they try ti get into some detail discussing silencers.
Click to expand...
So they didn’t actually show a pic of the silencer they were discussing, so what? That’s just bad editing, it’s not a factual error.

The article talks about the SIG MCX upper and a corresponding SIG 5.56 silencer, and that part you quoted describes the SIG SRD556 silencer. It’s a rather unusual-looking silencer; it’s a fat, tubeless design with baffles welded together to form the outside of the silencer. It’s pretty quiet and it tends to have less back pressure than other 5.56 silencers.

Just because they described the SRD556 in an awkward way, that doesn’t make it a “glaring error”, it just makes it a badly written article. I’ll say it again, I didn’t notice any actual technical firearm errors in this article, just bad writing.
 
Last edited:
I’m with Theo. I understand the article, it’s the OP I don’t follow. This wasn’t a tech article for the firearm industry, it was piece written for the general public to give them an idea of advancements that are being made for our military.
Just as I don’t need to know the details of our latest air to air missile, just need to know the next generation is better than the last.
 
jag2 said:
I’m with Theo. I understand the article, it’s the OP I don’t follow. This wasn’t a tech article for the firearm industry, it was piece written for the general public to give them an idea of advancements that are being made for our military.
Just as I don’t need to know the details of our latest air to air missile, just need to know the next generation is better than the last.
Click to expand...
To follow your example, this would be like illustrating the article on the latest air-to-air missile with a photo of a Piper Cub.
 
Last edited:
You've really gotta be looking for something to complain about in that article. It was written in very generic terms that most common people with little understanding of the technical aspects could relate to.

When your 5 year old asks you questions about how highly technical things work you don't explain it in the same terms you would to a 25 year old electrical engineering student.

The average person on the street has about as much firearms knowledge as a 5 year old. Principles have to be put in simplistic terms for them to even begin to understand.
 
jmr40 said:
The average person on the street has about as much firearms knowledge as a 5 year old. Principles have to be put in simplistic terms for them to even begin to understand.
Click to expand...
And how much of that ignorance is because of misinformation and disinformation they see in the media? Illustrations are supposed to "illustrate" (as in, supplement and enhance) the text they accompany. Too many sources today have lost sight of that fundamental concept. They see a pass of text and they just throw in any old picture they can find, as a filler to break up the text. That's not helpful.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Illustrations are supposed to "illustrate" (as in, supplement and enhance) the text they accompany. Too many sources today have lost sight of that fundamental concept. They see a pass of text and they just throw in any old picture they can find, as a filler to break up the text. That's not helpful.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair point, but so far the only factual error anyone can point to in this article is a single caption that says “Sig Sauer SBR with silencer” and yet the picture only shows the SBR by itself. OK, so someone put up the wrong picture, but that looks more like a careless editing mistake than anything else. So along with some odd phrasing and a few typos, that’s the only real problem with this article.

The OP challenged us to “see if you can count how many laughable, glaring, errors you can find in this article”. So far we only have one editing error where they posted the wrong picture, a typo, and some hyperbole. Not really a big deal and certainly not bad as far as mainstream gun articles go.

Again, I still haven’t seen a single technical error in the text of the article itself, and nobody else has managed to point one out either. I’d say this is one of the more technically accurate gun articles I’ve read from a non-gun media source.
 
Last edited:
The article does require a bit of faith as there are no pics of the suppressor. I did a search for additional info and could only find what one claims (their word) is the new suppressor. I would like to find out more if anyone has a link.
 
olddav said:
The article does require a bit of faith as there are no pics of the suppressor. I did a search for additional info and could only find what one claims (their word) is the new suppressor. I would like to find out more if anyone has a link.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming the article is referring to the SIG SRD556 QD silencer, or maybe a newer, similar design. The article describes the silencer as having a lightweight, tubeless design with more internal volume than other 5.56 silencers, and that’s an accurate description of the SRD556.

https://www.sigsauer.com/store/srd556-qd.html
 
I’m assuming the article is referring to the SIG SRD556 QD silencer, or maybe a newer, similar design. The article describes the silencer as having a lightweight, tubeless design with more internal volume than other 5.56 silencers, and that’s an accurate description of the SRD556.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Once you weld all of the baffles together, they ARE a tube.
 
FrankenMauser said:
I disagree.
Once you weld all of the baffles together, they ARE a tube.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that’s not the point here. “Tubeless” is a common term in the silencer world and it refers to a silencer that doesn’t have a traditional outer tube; instead the baffles are simply welded together.

The author of this article correctly referred to the SIG silencer as “tubeless” since it doesn’t use a traditional outer tube and instead the baffles are welded together to form the tube.
 
Wasn't too far off. Sprinkled with hyperbole & buzz words... Hey, gotta keep in mind that not every, even most gun owners, are as versed or nit picky as some here.

I generally take "expert" advice with a sprinkle of salt. This goes for both firearms and IT related crap, because on paper, I'm an "expert", too. ;)

Did I say, I absolutely hate the friggin' word? :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top