I have to agree with Brian. Do not ascribe to malice what can better be explained by ignorance. We all make the mistake that an organization works with one mind, but they don't, The illustrator could probably only find the one gun image to use and probably didn't think it mattered. Others may have felt the same way while still others saw the difference and either didn't care or it fit the narrative they liked.
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.
NBC Illustration Shows DC Shooter Using an M4 Carbine
- Thread starter Geoff7
- Start date
I heard CNN describe the movements of our battleships over the Syria incident.
You can look for conspiracies but stupidity is such a good choice.
The Iowa rules the desert seas once again!
Or did they say the Arizona?!
It is all of so-called journalism: the bias is not only in what the choose to report or ignore, but also what they choose to seek expert advice on or not. For most of them, they consider someone from gun control side the experts and choose to ignore experts who make or employ guns.
2damnold4this
New member
Some news reports are saying that he cut down his "wooden stock" on his 870 Express and other reports are showing a picture of a shotgun with black plastic furniture.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
NPR today clearly said that there is no push for gun control after the incident. The focus is more on the mental health issues AND that misidentification of the firearm took the winds out the sails of the AWB rants. Plus, that that gun was legally bought.
They also discuss the rush to nonsense that occurs after an incident. Watch the original coverage of 9/11 and the reporters and 'experts' sound like idiots.
They also discuss the rush to nonsense that occurs after an incident. Watch the original coverage of 9/11 and the reporters and 'experts' sound like idiots.
Okay, I guess I'll go along that it's mostly ignorance and not an 'evil agenda' that drives our main stream media in gun issues. (said Dale putting away his tinfoil hat).
But it's an ignorance they refuse to remedy. And I think it's because it's one of their core beliefs that guns are bad. Stephen Hunter talked about the 'narrative' in the MSM in one of his books and he's not only a gun guy but worked for a MSM newspaper out east. (The book might have been 'I, Sniper').
http://www.amazon.com/Sniper-Bob-Lee-Swagger-Novels/dp/1416565175#reader_1416565175
On a separate note:
???
I'm VERY glad the anti folk are not making hay out of this event but to me (if I were them-shudder) the fact that the gun was 'legally' bought would be a debate point FOR the anti-gun crowd. That is, it would be a rally point to make more laws so the gun could NOT be LEGALLY purchased. If the guy got the gun illegally then there would be nothing more that could be done. Once again I think the anti-gun folk suffer from fuzzy thinking.
But it's an ignorance they refuse to remedy. And I think it's because it's one of their core beliefs that guns are bad. Stephen Hunter talked about the 'narrative' in the MSM in one of his books and he's not only a gun guy but worked for a MSM newspaper out east. (The book might have been 'I, Sniper').
http://www.amazon.com/Sniper-Bob-Lee-Swagger-Novels/dp/1416565175#reader_1416565175
On a separate note:
-took the winds out the sails of the AWB rants. Plus, that that gun was legally bought.
???
I'm VERY glad the anti folk are not making hay out of this event but to me (if I were them-shudder) the fact that the gun was 'legally' bought would be a debate point FOR the anti-gun crowd. That is, it would be a rally point to make more laws so the gun could NOT be LEGALLY purchased. If the guy got the gun illegally then there would be nothing more that could be done. Once again I think the anti-gun folk suffer from fuzzy thinking.
I don't think its just simple ignorance. Nor is it entirely an "evil" agenda. ITs both, in combination.
The guy in the effects dept who is told "get me a clip of a guy shooting for this segment" might not have a personal anti gun agenda. The reporter on screen might not (although those who disagree with the boss seldom get much airtime), but the bosses and the owners who make the high level decisions about general policies DO have an agenda. Some of them have two.
The one agenda shared by all of them is to make money. Today, everything seems to be grist for that mill. Maybe it always was, but once upon a time, it seemed to me that being right (accurate) was more important than being first to report...something.
back in the early 80s, Time magazine printed an editorial that said, basically, that while journalists should be neutral and objective, some issues were too important for them not to take sides. And Time magazine was taking the side against personal ownership of firearms. They actually printed that, once. So, for being honest about taking that position, I respect them. For actually taking that position, I consider them boneheaded idiots, but I do respect them for not pretending to be otherwise in this matter.
As for the tactics they use to press their agenda, and the accuracy of their reporting, I have no respect at all.
The guy in the effects dept who is told "get me a clip of a guy shooting for this segment" might not have a personal anti gun agenda. The reporter on screen might not (although those who disagree with the boss seldom get much airtime), but the bosses and the owners who make the high level decisions about general policies DO have an agenda. Some of them have two.
The one agenda shared by all of them is to make money. Today, everything seems to be grist for that mill. Maybe it always was, but once upon a time, it seemed to me that being right (accurate) was more important than being first to report...something.
back in the early 80s, Time magazine printed an editorial that said, basically, that while journalists should be neutral and objective, some issues were too important for them not to take sides. And Time magazine was taking the side against personal ownership of firearms. They actually printed that, once. So, for being honest about taking that position, I respect them. For actually taking that position, I consider them boneheaded idiots, but I do respect them for not pretending to be otherwise in this matter.
As for the tactics they use to press their agenda, and the accuracy of their reporting, I have no respect at all.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Funny, I teach about science and research design and make it the point that modern analyses of science show that the decision processes of researchers are influenced by social context.
The point is made all the time. The rational rules of science is that knowledge is obtained for its own sake and is value nature. The conventional rules indicate that paradigms, methods, etc. are strongly influenced by social context.
Why would we expect any other human endeavor like journalism to be different?
The point is made all the time. The rational rules of science is that knowledge is obtained for its own sake and is value nature. The conventional rules indicate that paradigms, methods, etc. are strongly influenced by social context.
Why would we expect any other human endeavor like journalism to be different?
Claude Clay
New member
"It's often difficult to discern intent versus ignorance with the media" Brian
well, as they always get it wrong in a way that enriches their agenda
I find it very difficult to by into ignorance
well, as they always get it wrong in a way that enriches their agenda
I find it very difficult to by into ignorance
In a semi-related story a Journalism Professor at the University of Kansas was placed on administrative leave pending investigation of Twitter posts. Apparently after the shooting in Washington he posted, “#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you”.
He has defended his posts by saying he was just trying to start a “debate” and that he defends the NRA’s First and Second Amendment rights. While I understand the idea of starting a debate, but he does appear to wish violent attacks against NRA members and their families.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/20/kansas-professor-placed-on-leave-after-tweet-about-navy-yard-killings/?intcmp=latestnews
He has defended his posts by saying he was just trying to start a “debate” and that he defends the NRA’s First and Second Amendment rights. While I understand the idea of starting a debate, but he does appear to wish violent attacks against NRA members and their families.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/20/kansas-professor-placed-on-leave-after-tweet-about-navy-yard-killings/?intcmp=latestnews
Dfariswheel
New member
The anti-gunners constantly complain that we "can't have a conversation about gun violence".
We've been having a conversation about guns since the mid-1960's.
The anti-gunners don't like it because they keep losing the conversation.
What they want is for us to stand there flat-footed, heads down looking guilty while they lecture us on why we need to give up our rights.
America tried the gun control idea and gave it a GOOD try starting in the 60's through the late 1990's.
America saw the total lack of results as promised, and have decided it was a failed experiment, much like Prohibition.
We've decided to try it the other way and results seem to indicate THAT way does work.
Violence is down 49% since the mid-1990's. Everywhere where gun laws are loosened and people are permitted to carry concealed guns, violent crime drops.
This just enrages the Press and the Left ( but I repeat myself) because their "feelings" tell them that guns are bad and if we just ban them it'll be peace and sunshine.
As for mis-identifying the guns used in these crimes, this is often deliberately done to try to generate a "bum's rush" to force legislators to "do something" before their opponents can defend their Rights, and because these people not only don't know anything about guns, most of them are actively PROUD of their ignorance about guns.
They know what they know and don't try to confuse the issue with facts and truth.
We've been having a conversation about guns since the mid-1960's.
The anti-gunners don't like it because they keep losing the conversation.
What they want is for us to stand there flat-footed, heads down looking guilty while they lecture us on why we need to give up our rights.
America tried the gun control idea and gave it a GOOD try starting in the 60's through the late 1990's.
America saw the total lack of results as promised, and have decided it was a failed experiment, much like Prohibition.
We've decided to try it the other way and results seem to indicate THAT way does work.
Violence is down 49% since the mid-1990's. Everywhere where gun laws are loosened and people are permitted to carry concealed guns, violent crime drops.
This just enrages the Press and the Left ( but I repeat myself) because their "feelings" tell them that guns are bad and if we just ban them it'll be peace and sunshine.
As for mis-identifying the guns used in these crimes, this is often deliberately done to try to generate a "bum's rush" to force legislators to "do something" before their opponents can defend their Rights, and because these people not only don't know anything about guns, most of them are actively PROUD of their ignorance about guns.
They know what they know and don't try to confuse the issue with facts and truth.
The anti-gunners constantly complain that we "can't have a conversation about gun violence".
As soon as the conversation is about gun violence and not violence of all types, we've lost the debate. They always define the terms to give them an unfair advantage. For instance, using total gun deaths that include suicides and gang shootings. I'm sure someone living in Chicago would think it's appropriate to count gang shootings and perhaps it is, but it should be spelled out. Also, gang violence wouldn't stop if there were no guns; they would use chains, bats, tire irons, knives, etc. Now, try to put a ban on those!
Oh, we've been having it in one form or another since Reconstruction.We've been having a conversation about guns since the mid-1960's.
The problem is the misinterpretation of the word "conversation." We are given demands, not invitations to anything resembling a conversation.
In a conversation, there's give and take, and perhaps a chance to meet in the middle. There is no middle ground for us. We are simply expected to accept punishment for things we didn't do and give up things without getting anything in return.
No thanks. I don't respond well to ultimatums.
Then there is the two words that I cringe at any time I hear them now: "common sense."
What they really mean is that if you don't agree with them, then you have no common sense.
"Common sense" makes sense when a mother says to her child "why did you touch that hot iron; you just have no common sense." It can be used for concepts, but once you start making a law, you can't rely on it. You have to start using (shhh! this isn't really a cussing word) facts. There, I said it.
And I have to wonder why no one has pointed out that if the new gun laws in NY, CO, CT, and NJ make so much sense, why did they have to sneak them in so quickly during the night so no one could read them? If they make so much sense, then there should be no problem to get them passed.
What they really mean is that if you don't agree with them, then you have no common sense.
"Common sense" makes sense when a mother says to her child "why did you touch that hot iron; you just have no common sense." It can be used for concepts, but once you start making a law, you can't rely on it. You have to start using (shhh! this isn't really a cussing word) facts. There, I said it.
And I have to wonder why no one has pointed out that if the new gun laws in NY, CO, CT, and NJ make so much sense, why did they have to sneak them in so quickly during the night so no one could read them? If they make so much sense, then there should be no problem to get them passed.
Andy Blozinski
New member
It's truly a shame that people died, but this situation has made a point that is quite damaging to the excessive gun control side of the debate. It happened where the area wide gun control laws are most strict in our nation. It happened in a small scale location where everyone is banned from bringing weapons and must rely on assigned security personnel. The shooter's weapon only had a 5 shot magazine and wasn't even auto loading.
Virtually every proposal that has been referred to as "common sense" that would protect us from these situations was in place and it didn't change a thing.
Virtually every proposal that has been referred to as "common sense" that would protect us from these situations was in place and it didn't change a thing.
5 more minutes to report the news to get it correct so be it.
There's the rub...
The newsies are so worried that someone will 'scoop' them, that they willy-nilly 'report' any and all info they acquire whether it is factual, or not...
They (wrongly) feel that if it is not factual, they can 'correct' the info at a later time, but if they are 'right' and they sit on it and someone else 'reports' said info before them, they will lose viewers, revenue, and possibly their jobs...
It behooves them to spew anything that comes across their desk...
Andy Blozinski
New member
This attitude that it can be corrected at a later time is not unique to journalism at this time. Board wargames from the 70-80s were carefully researched and vetted legal documents that functioned very well. Modern wargames and video games are often put out on the market riddled with problems, even after "beta testing", and modified on the fly. It gets the product out faster for sale and in some cases increases sales because people are buying corrections after they've bought previous versions.
"I want it now" is a market demand that results in the supplier producing it right now. "I want it now" has always been here. It's just that the definition of "now" is a shorter time period than it once was.
The journalists aren't solely to blame for this. The audience that demands it shares some blame as well.
"I want it now" is a market demand that results in the supplier producing it right now. "I want it now" has always been here. It's just that the definition of "now" is a shorter time period than it once was.
The journalists aren't solely to blame for this. The audience that demands it shares some blame as well.
The newsies are so worried that someone will 'scoop' them, that they willy-nilly 'report' any and all info they acquire whether it is factual, or not...
Nail ==> Head, square on.
I think that this started happening as newspapers lost readers to the Internet. A newspaper used to have time to get it right, but now everyone expects the news immediately.
The question is, are they so dumb that they don't realize the trouble, i.e., rumors, they cause because of the incorrect news. I do believe they start believing each other's rumors and report those.
The shooter's weapon only had a 5 shot magazine and wasn't even auto loading
You make a very good point. To add to that, the police arrived, in 7 minutes and didn't stop him for another 30-60 minutes. Why? He was hearing voices and people knew it (otherwise how do they know since they killed him)?
This is a perfect case that none of the solutions of the anti's work. You don't need more than a shotgun and pistol to kill a lot of people before the police can stop you.
Revoltella
Moderator
If he had an AR capable of "3 round bursts", he didn't just buy it at a gun store.
Reports I'd read regarding an AR was that he took it from the guard that he shot's position, along with the guard's handgun.
Reports I'd read regarding an AR was that he took it from the guard that he shot's position, along with the guard's handgun.
Last edited: