You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Katie Couric Anti-Gun Doc. Misleading Edit
- Thread starter BarryLee
- Start date
<Snip Post>
Especially given how anti-gun the general media seems to be, I don't see how it would be an advantage to talk to them in support gun rights. The media will do what they want to do, so ignoring them will give them the least amount of ammunition. No need to feed the propaganda machine...
Tom Servo said:The second is that gun-rights supporters need to be really careful who they speak to in the press.
Especially given how anti-gun the general media seems to be, I don't see how it would be an advantage to talk to them in support gun rights. The media will do what they want to do, so ignoring them will give them the least amount of ammunition. No need to feed the propaganda machine...
They know very well what they did, and why they did it. And they know full well how wrong it was.
The sad parts about it all, they don't care. Ratings, and those multi million dollar payrolls mean more than honesty and integrity. That, and the sadist part, there are people in this world that still believe in this type of "reporting". Too many Sheep and not enough Sheep Dogs.
EPIX pulled it from their website: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/?s=katie+couric
Since Dan Rather the newsjournalists are getting their feet held to the fire more often. They might be able to do a drive by but in the long run it does affect their reputation.
Brian Williams has that problem. While their supervisors and editors may not catch them in the act, we do, and what we watch (ie whos sponsoring what) does have an influence.
All Williams did was mess up remembering whether or not missiles were passing by his aircraft. Couric was complicit with the producer in deliberately slanting the piece and lying.
I speculate she won't be taken off the air and will be given a pass. Is that fair in light of how male anchors are treated?
Since Dan Rather the newsjournalists are getting their feet held to the fire more often. They might be able to do a drive by but in the long run it does affect their reputation.
Brian Williams has that problem. While their supervisors and editors may not catch them in the act, we do, and what we watch (ie whos sponsoring what) does have an influence.
All Williams did was mess up remembering whether or not missiles were passing by his aircraft. Couric was complicit with the producer in deliberately slanting the piece and lying.
I speculate she won't be taken off the air and will be given a pass. Is that fair in light of how male anchors are treated?
Seems like the misleading edit is just the tip of the iceberg. Ammoland has posted a video where the producer admitted sending a Colorado employee to Arizona where the employee met someone in a parking lot and purchased a Bushmaster rifle and three pistols. While the producer wanted to illustrate how easy it is to buy firearms without a background check, it evidently never occurred to anyone there might be laws against doing that via interstate sales. Story and video at Ammoland here: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/06/und...ig-confesses-to-federal-crimes/#axzz4AWjIoFJy
The Drudge Report linked to a Federalist article here: http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/03...oducers-repeatedly-violated-federal-gun-laws/
The Drudge Report linked to a Federalist article here: http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/03...oducers-repeatedly-violated-federal-gun-laws/
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
They are covered by the Bloomberg umbrella. You can expect no criminal investigation.
He probably bought a bunch of the advertising through shell companies in order to fund the report.
He probably bought a bunch of the advertising through shell companies in order to fund the report.
Having written on the egregious quality of some of NPR's bias earlier in this thread as well as elsewhere at different times, Let me give it its due.
On my drive in this morning Amy Baxter gave a report on the AR15 during the Market Place program.
She noted that it is used in many of these events, but that it is also the most popular rifle "style" in the country. She noted that detractors will often refer to it as an "assault weapon", but that those on the other side of the issue eschew the term as meaningless and political. She observed that while the original rifle could shoot in fully automatic mode, the great majority of those sold to and held by civilians are semi-automatic only "meaning they shoot one bullet with each pull of the trigger".
She also noted that some Sandyhook plaintiffs had sued the manufacturer of the item involved in that incident, but that manufacturers have strong protection against suits for misuse (her word) of their product.
It was surprisingly balanced and dispassionate.
On my drive in this morning Amy Baxter gave a report on the AR15 during the Market Place program.
She noted that it is used in many of these events, but that it is also the most popular rifle "style" in the country. She noted that detractors will often refer to it as an "assault weapon", but that those on the other side of the issue eschew the term as meaningless and political. She observed that while the original rifle could shoot in fully automatic mode, the great majority of those sold to and held by civilians are semi-automatic only "meaning they shoot one bullet with each pull of the trigger".
She also noted that some Sandyhook plaintiffs had sued the manufacturer of the item involved in that incident, but that manufacturers have strong protection against suits for misuse (her word) of their product.
It was surprisingly balanced and dispassionate.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's a statistic I haven't kept track of. In just how many of "these" events have "assault weapon" (i.e. AR-15 or AK-47 type rifles) been used?zukiphile said:She noted that it is used in many of these events, ...
New Life Church? - Nope
Amish School (PA)? - Nope
Trolley Square Mall? - Nope
Virginia Tech? - Nope
Westroads Mall? - Yes
Kirkwood City Hall? - Nope
Northern Illinois Univ? - Nope
Pinelake Health (NC)? - Nope
American Civic Association? - Nope
Fort Hood (1)? - Nope
Gabby Giffords? - Nope
Oikos University? - Nope
Aurora Theater? - Yes
Washington Navy Yard? - Nope
Sandy Hook? Yes
Fort Hood (2)? - Nope
Marysville Pilchuck HS? - Nope
Emanuel AME Church - Nope
Umpqua Community College? - Nope
San Bernardino? Yes
Orlando? Yes
Hmmm ... It appears that, once again, the facts don't fit the narrative. The above list probably isn't complete but it shows 21 incidents, out of which a grand total of 5 involved "assault weapon" type rifles. I would not call that "many of these events."
She noted that it is used in many of these events, ...
That's a statistic I haven't kept track of.
If you quote the entire statistical point, it illustrates that the frequency isn't especially disproportionate; it is an arm in common use.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes, of course. But that's the point. The statement that "assault weapons" are used in "many of these events" is misleading. Of course, "many" is an imprecise term. We know there are millions of AR-15 and AK-47 rifles out there, yet of 21 mass shootings in recent history such weapons were used in 23.8 percent of them. Is that "many"? I dunno. It's more than one, but it's well short of a majority. To me, 5 out of 21 "events" (I prefer the term "incidents"), when there are millions of the things on the streets and when the real majority of mass shootings have involved handguns, does not equate to "many" in the context of the statement.zukiphile said:If you quote the entire statistical point, it illustrates that the frequency isn't especially disproportionate; it is an arm in common use.
Last edited: