Firearms and the media

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

I didn't want to hijack the thread on the Mythbusters cannonade of some residential property in Alameda County, but in that thread there is some harsh criticism of the media as being "always wrong" when it comes to facts, especially about firearms.

 

Although it wasn't said outright, the implication was that the facts are ignored or distorted because the reporters are anti-gun. While I can't say that is categorically untrue, as a former newspaper reporter and a current media relations person, I can say that it is mostly untrue.

 

The issue isn't a bias against firearms. It is largely a lack of knowledge about a subject that is esoteric, arcane, and frequently doesn't make sense -- if you think that last statement is wrong, consider this.

 

Any educated person would know that "caliber" is a designation meaning 1/100 of an inch. Logically, a .38-caliber weapon would have a bore or shoot a bullet measuring .380 (remember we're dealing with someone with NO knowledge of firearms). But this person with no knowledge must accept that a .38 caliber bullet can be fired from a .357 barrel, and that there are at least two OTHER .38 caliber bore sizes (.375 for .38 S&W and .401 for .38-40). This is confusing even to people who know firearms fairly well. Pretend for a moment than you're a 25-year-old girl from LA who went to college in Massachusetts. You've never held a firearm in your life, you have 45 minutes to press time, and you have a cop (who may himself not know about firearms) explaining a weapon being used in a crime.

 

Inaccuracies are built into that process and there's almost no way, other than years of experience with firearms, to avoid them. When I was an editor, at least I came down hard on those who confused caliber and millimeter -- but that distinction too is one designed to give the inexperienced fits. Even gun writers refer to 9 mm caliber pistols, and most Americans are too poorly schooled on the conversion from metric to non-metric measurements to perform accurately -- so occasionally we read about the dreaded .40 millimeter pistol.

 

I guess my point here is don't expect expertise, especially from local television reporters in small markets. They're usually fresh out of college on two-year, non-compete contracts. They'll be there for two years and then move on to the next, larger (more money)market, and if they stay in the business long enough, they'll have some expertise -- but probably not in firearms.

[Solo_Sam]

I guess my point here is don't expect expertise, especially from local television reporters in small markets.

 

I completely disagree with this. When you are putting out information that informs beliefs and shapes ideas, you have a responsibility to ensure your facts are correct. To do otherwise not only undermines the journalist's credibility, but it misleads the public and draws them to accept incorrect conclusions... the exact opposite of what responsible journalism is supposed to stand for.

 

My understanding of your comments is that because journalists don't know any better, they shouldn't be required to do their research and we should accept their intellectual laziness. None of this should be acceptable from a person who claims to be a professional of any trade, much less journalism.

 

-Solo Sam

#91319

[Scout Sonnor]

I remember back in the late '80s when the media bent was on the "semi-automatic assault rifle". That made me so crazy.

 

When the Chinese troops arrived at Tiananman square, the reporter said they were all armed with "semi-automatic assault rifles". I thought "uh, no darlin', those are the real deal".

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

there are at least two OTHER .38 caliber bore sizes (.375 for .38 S&W and .401 for .38-40).

 

Oops, not one to climb on the media's back too often,but all of my .38 S&W revolvers have a 0.361 inch bore (groove diameter).

 

Good luck, GJ

[Sergeant Smokepole #29248L]

If you can't print ACCURATE descriptions, then don't print until you can.

[J-BAR #18287]

If a reporter were writing an article about financial matters he would be expected to get the numbers right. How is this different?

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

I completely disagree with this. When you are putting out information that informs beliefs and shapes ideas, you have a responsibility to ensure your facts are correct. To do otherwise not only undermines the journalist's credibility, but it misleads the public and draws them to accept incorrect conclusions... the exact opposite of what responsible journalism is supposed to stand for.

 

My understanding of your comments is that because journalists don't know any better, they shouldn't be required to do their research and we should accept their intellectual laziness. None of this should be acceptable from a person who claims to be a professional of any trade, much less journalism.

 

-Solo Sam

#91319

 

Remember -- zero experience with firearms, deadline in 30 to 45 minutes. Exactly when, where and how is this "reasearch" supposed to take place?

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

Oops, not one to climb on the media's back too often,but all of my .38 S&W revolvers have a 0.361 inch bore (groove diameter).

 

Good luck, GJ

 

Highlights the problem. I know guns fairly well, and from memory did the bore diameter wrong (.375 would be .38-55, so yet ANOTHER ".38 caliber" to confuse the reporter).

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

If you can't print ACCURATE descriptions, then don't print until you can.

 

What if you don't know it's not accurate. You know nothing about guns, so you ask the police incident commander at the scene. He says, "Looks like a small caliber handgun, a .380 or a .38 caliber revolver." And the reporter (knowing nothing and working on limited time), reports, "Police at the scene said the killer used a .380 revolver."

 

Again, no intentional malfeasance, simply a lack of knowledge complete enough to not realize there's any difference between ".380" and ".38" -- since logically both are the same size, right?

[Cemetery]

If a reporter were writing an article about financial matters he would be expected to get the numbers right. How is this different?

 

It's called pushing and anti gun agenda. Nothing new. Major media news outlets are throughly anti gun, and have not qualms about pushing false info. More false, the better.

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L52qeI-j4jM/Sr0k4ki3_iI/AAAAAAAAA0o/7oNaOb3eMyU/s1600/journalists-guide-to-guns-1.jpg

[Sergeant Smokepole #29248L]

What if you don't know it's not accurate. You know nothing about guns, so you ask the police incident commander at the scene. He says, "Looks like a small caliber handgun, a .380 or a .38 caliber revolver." And the reporter (knowing nothing and working on limited time), reports, "Police at the scene said the killer used a .380 revolver."

 

Again, no intentional malfeasance, simply a lack of knowledge complete enough to not realize there's any difference between ".380" and ".38" -- since logically both are the same size, right?

 

Any professional knows that a story should be accurate. If you don't know, research it. A reporter's first duty is to report the truth to the readers, not just write something to beat a deadline. That is why our news stories are in the sad state of inaccuracy as they are now.

 

Would you tolerate a cop that wrote you a ticket but didn't know the specific ordinance or statute that he was just writing? How about one that wrote a report based on half truths? Wouldn't you demand a proper investigation before putting it down on paper??????? Especially if it was your arse being prosecuted based on inaccurate facts?????

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

Having worked in TV for 35 years doing an average of two newscasts per day at three different stations, dealing with everyone from wet-behind-the-ears college kids to "seasoned" reporters, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that 99% of them don't know doodley squat about guns.

 

Oddnews is right: accuracy in reporting means nothing. And worst of all, when you try to correct them, they don't care.

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

Any professional knows that a story should be accurate. If you don't know, research it. A reporter's first duty is to report the truth to the readers, not just write something to beat a deadline. That is why our news stories are in the sad state of inaccuracy as they are now.

 

Would you tolerate a cop that wrote you a ticket but didn't know the specific ordinance or statute that he was just writing? How about one that wrote a report based on half truths? Wouldn't you demand a proper investigation before putting it down on paper??????? Especially if it was your arse being prosecuted based on inaccurate facts?????

 

Journalists are professional journalists, not professional gunsmiths. I'm not certain when, where or how they're supposed to acquire the arcane knowledge of firearms people want them to have.

 

It's not, as someone mentioned above, the same as getting the numbers right in a finance story, for two reasons. The first is that in a financial story (I've done this professionally) you'll have a financial report with numbers you can reference. The second is that journalism training includes training in financial matters. Most J-programs require a course in economics -- so the college-educated young journalist probably has an inkling of finance and how it works, but has no such knowledge or training when it comes to firearms.

 

Yes, in a legal prosecution, I'd require accurate details about the accusation. Newspapers and tv stations aren't trial courts. In trial courts, both sides can call in witnesses and there are weeks or months to prepare an accurate brief. How someone with no knowledge, working on a deadline, is supposed to acquire than knowledge and still report is beyond me. You report what the experts tell you, until you have enough knowledge to challenge the experts. I knew more about guns when I was doing a cops/courts beat than most of the cops I encountered, but I was a rarity.

 

Further, although newsrooms are rife with anti-gun bias, it is not that bias that is the source of the bad reportage. The most anti-gun editor I ever worked with was actually very accurate on the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic, and even understood some of the .380/.38 (and similar) issues. But if you expect your daily cops reporter to know the difference betweenn .45 Colt and .45 Automatic Colt Pistol, you're being unrealistic.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Given the fact that in most large metropolitan areas there is a gun involved incident reported, lets say, every other day. or 3 times a week. That means there are 150+ gun related stories per year. Seems to me the need to do a little basic research on firearms is there. I doesn't take long to learn the difference between semi automatic and a revolver and that assault weapons are fully automatic. It's easier to get your info from movies and TV though.

Just laziness in my opinion.

[Pulp, SASS#28319]

I'm thinkin' that the most important learnin' we can get from this thread is:

 

don't pay too much attention to the news.

[Ben Bitten]

I guess my point here is don't expect expertise, especially from local television reporters in small markets. They're usually fresh out of college on two-year, non-compete contracts. They'll be there for two years and then move on to the next, larger (more money)market, and if they stay in the business long enough, they'll have some expertise -- but probably not in firearms.

 

I don't expect expertise, but I expect accurate information. A reporter doesn't have to be an expert in a given area to report on it accurately. This is an issue I've had with the media for many years. Both with guns and reptiles.

 

I keep boa constrictors (and one Brazilian Rainbow Boa. I've been keeping snakes and working with them nearly my whole life (going on 32 years now). I got my first one when I was 10 years old and I'm still going strong. Reptiles are a key part of my life (so much so my SASS alias was born from an incident involving a crocodile ). Reptiles aren't my profession, but they have become such a part of my life that I've been sought out locally on some matters. Partly becasue I am the leader of the local 4-H Herpetology Club, but also because I've done a great deal of educational work throughout the state over the years on these wonderful critters. Anyway, for the past several years I've been actively fighting legislation that would list several species of Boa and Python as dangerous animals and could have them classified under the Lacey Act, or worse - banned outright. I know these animals and I know them well. As a result I know that much of what the media reports on them is inaccurate - not because they are part of a larger liberal agenda to control animals, or restrict the rights of individuals, but becasue they (the media agencies) don't bother to check facts, or do research. As a result their reporting does more harm than good to honest and responsible reptile keepers. The general public is going to be largely ignorant of things like keeping reptiles, or what a Boa or Python are really like - so what they see in the media is usually taken as gospel. The same thing goes for guns. My mother hates guns, and her reasons are the media, and what she's "learned" from it since the 60's. I continually work to educated her on various things, but I'm working against nearly 5 decades of anti-gun sentiment - all spurred by the media. My wife and I have a friend who is terrified of Boas and Pythons. She's stated that my snakes are going to escape and kill our children, and that boas are lethal at 4ft. One of my boas is 4ft now, and the only thing it's a danger to is a rat. ...And where did she get these ideas? "TV," as she's put it.

 

Inaccuracies in reporting may be accidental - and they will happen, but they can have a long-lasting effect once that information hits the main stream. Legislators have latched onto such inaccuracies when it comes to gun control, the keeping of reptiles, and various other issues and made them a rallying cry. I'm not saying reports need to be experts in what they report on, or that they should give 45 minute educational lectures on a given topic to better illustrate it to the audience, but what they are reporting is seen as a source of education by some, and if inaccurate information is thrown out there then that's what people will believe. And this is what I've come up against when I've been out working to educate folks (mostly kids) about reptiles. I've had people tell me that they heard that we'll have Burmese Pythons in the streets of Washington DC by 2014 (migrating Northward from the Everglades), I've had people tell me that giant snakes are living in the sewers of Miami, I've had people tell me that African Rock Pythons are breeding with King Cobras in the Everglades, I've had folks tell me that the pythons are eating nothing but endangered species, and I've had people tell me that Boa Constrictors are venomous because of their pupil shape... among other things. All of these ideas came from the media and inaccurate reporting. I really work to correct this and better educate folks, but when legislators latch on to an idea (such as Burms migrating out of the Everglades, or Burms eating nothing but endangered species) it makes it that much harder to convince people otherwise. Just like it's still difficult to convince my mother that allowing our oldest son to shoot at Scout camp isn't going to turn him into a hardened criminal.

 

Inaccuracies in the media can be our biggest enemy.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Journalists are professional journalists, not professional gunsmiths. I'm not certain when, where or how they're supposed to acquire the arcane knowledge of firearms people want them to have.

...

But if you expect your daily cops reporter to know the difference between .45 Colt and .45 Automatic Colt Pistol, you're being unrealistic.

 

How about if journalists just don't try to write about details that they, personally, don't understand. If you, Ms Journalist, are not real sure what gun was used, then don't try to puff yourself up as being a forensics expert (just because you caught a few episodes of CSI Miami) when you report a crime. Just say: "Police investigating the crime report a handgun was used."

 

The public probably doesn't care what caliber, make, model or color. The crime is the subject of the news article, not the firearm. The folks who do need to know (the detectives and CSI types) can find out pertinent technical details, and had better be able to understand them, from a good police report.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

Given the fact that in most large metropolitan areas there is a gun involved incident reported, lets say, every other day. or 3 times a week. That means there are 150+ gun related stories per year. Seems to me the need to do a little basic research on firearms is there. I doesn't take long to learn the difference between semi automatic and a revolver and that assault weapons are fully automatic. It's easier to get your info from movies and TV though.

Just laziness in my opinion.

 

I worked on a daily in Jackson County, Missouri, where I covered cops and courts for about a year (The Examiner, in Independence, Mo., 1998-99). I covered two murders and maybe three or four shootings in that time. We were a circulation 25,000 daily in a metro area of about 350,000 people (but our coverage was snowed under by the far larger Kansas City Star, which accounts for our poor circulation number). Reporters move from city to city and beat to beat -- a typical reporter may only encounter four or five firearms-related stories in over a five year time span. It's not laziness not to spend a lot of time on something they don't use very often.

 

The matter is compounded by the fact that despite the statement of experts like yourself (not being sarcastic, in this you ARE an expert), the Associated Press has deemed military-style semiautos as "assault rifles" and has sanctioned the use of that term to describe them. As a battle of semantics, it's one gun owners have lost, most reporters will thumb through the AP Stylebook and report using its terminology.

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

How about if journalists just don't try to write about details that they, personally, don't understand. If you, Ms Journalist, are not real sure what gun was used, then don't try to puff yourself up as being a forensics expert (just because you caught a few episodes of CSI Miami) when you report a crime. Just say: "Police investigating the crime report a handgun was used."

 

The public probably doesn't care what caliber, make, model or color. The crime is the subject of the news article, not the firearm. The folks who do need to know (the detectives and CSI types) can find out pertinent technical details, and had better be able to understand them, from a good police report.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

Journalists report to bosses. You've written the story and avoided saying anything specific about the firearm, and then your editor says, "What caliber/kind of gun was used?" "Well, the incident commander said a .380 or .38," and we're back to the original problem. (most editors don't know guns, either).

 

What's interesting is I took some of my fellow reporters (including some anti-gun women) to the range a couple of times. They loved it. I think a retirement career for me is to set up near the Journalism School in Columbia Missouri and offer paid courses in firearms and the media, including some range instruction. There's probably money to be made there.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Of course this discussion is not really taking into consideration the impact of any anti-gun bias that a network has.

 

But there is generally no-excuse for not getting facts correct with respect to types of firearms.

 

By the way caliber has another meaning in larger guns.

For example the big guns on the IOWA class battleships are known as 16 inch 50 caliber.

That means that the barrel is 50 * 16 inches in length. 800 inches for 66 ft 8 inches.

 

Most information that the press gets wrong is available if the writer actually did a small amount of research.

The internet provides a great deal of info. Albeit there are poorer sources of info. Just as there are superior sources.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Journalists report to bosses. You've written the story and avoided saying anything specific about the firearm, and then your editor says, "What caliber/kind of gun was used?" "Well, the incident commander said a .380 or .38," and we're back to the original problem. (most editors don't know guns, either).

 

What's interesting is I took some of my fellow reporters (including some anti-gun women) to the range a couple of times. They loved it. I think a retirement career for me is to set up near the Journalism School in Columbia Missouri and offer paid courses in firearms and the media, including some range instruction. There's probably money to be made there.

 

Journalists need to grow a pair, too. And take professional approach to their job. And Editors need to focus on reporting the news, not the agenda, too. Plenty of "faux pas" to go around for all involved.

 

And, if you can make a living squeezing money out of a rapidly declining print journalism budget for sending news staff to a firearms training program, you're pretty good.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Long Branch Louie]

How about if journalists just don't try to write about details that they, personally, don't understand. If you, Ms Journalist, are not real sure what gun was used, then don't try to puff yourself up as being a forensics expert (just because you caught a few episodes of CSI Miami) when you report a crime. Just say: "Police investigating the crime report a handgun was used."

 

The public probably doesn't care what caliber, make, model or color. The crime is the subject of the news article, not the firearm. The folks who do need to know (the detectives and CSI types) can find out pertinent technical details, and had better be able to understand them, from a good police report.

 

Good luck, GJ

I agree wholeheartedly! If you don't know what you are reporting, don't report it. Making a deadline with a story that is incorrect is no better than missing the deadline, in my opinion. I've never worked in journalism, but I firmly believe many times terms like caliber or "assault weapon" are used for sensationalism or shock value, without any regard to whether or not these terms apply. As GJ said, just say a handgun was used if you don't know the caliber.

I would like to get my hands on one of those 40mm autos ("semi" omitted for shock value) though....

[Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655]

Of course this discussion is not really taking into consideration the impact of any anti-gun bias that a network has.

 

But there is generally no-excuse for not getting facts correct with respect to types of firearms.

 

By the way caliber has another meaning in larger guns.

For example the big guns on the IOWA class battleships are known as 16 inch 50 caliber.

That means that the barrel is 50 * 16 inches in length. 800 inches for 66 ft 8 inches.

 

Most information that the press gets wrong is available if the writer actually did a small amount of research.

The internet provides a great deal of info. Albeit there are poorer sources of info. Just as there are superior sources.

One would think my .357 model 66 smith with a 6 inch barrel would be a bigger gun than a 5" 38 by at least one inch.

[Monco]

How about if journalists just don't try to write about details that they, personally, don't understand. If you, Ms Journalist, are not real sure what gun was used, then don't try to puff yourself up as being a forensics expert (just because you caught a few episodes of CSI Miami) when you report a crime. Just say: "Police investigating the crime report a handgun was used."

 

The public probably doesn't care what caliber, make, model or color. The crime is the subject of the news article, not the firearm. The folks who do need to know (the detectives and CSI types) can find out pertinent technical details, and had better be able to understand them, from a good police report.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

+1

Perfect. KISS method.

[BLACKFOOT SASS #11947]

Will you please give a reference to "caliber" as being a designation meaning 1/100 of an inch.

 

Blackfoot

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

Here in Tucson, the local Republican Party was having a gun raffle. They were raffling a Glock. The local media went absolutely NUTS reporting that they were raffling off the same kind of gun used to shoot Congress Critter Gabriel Giffords last January. No mention of the fact that Glocks are also used by the Tucson Police Dept.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Firearms and the media ? ...that's fuuny right there!

 

GG ~

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

Journalists need to grow a pair, too. And take professional approach to their job. And Editors need to focus on reporting the news, not the agenda, too. Plenty of "faux pas" to go around for all involved.

 

And, if you can make a living squeezing money out of a rapidly declining print journalism budget for sending news staff to a firearms training program, you're pretty good.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

Actually, I was more thinking making a break-even hobby out of taking college students who want to be journalists to the range. "NRA Firearms instructor and award winning journalist teaches you firearms fundamentals..." It's not impossible.

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

Will you please give a reference to "caliber" as being a designation meaning 1/100 of an inch.

 

Blackfoot

 

Second definition here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/caliber

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

Here in Tucson, the local Republican Party was having a gun raffle. They were raffling a Glock. The local media went absolutely NUTS reporting that they were raffling off the same kind of gun used to shoot Congress Critter Gabriel Giffords last January. No mention of the fact that Glocks are also used by the Tucson Police Dept.

 

Newsroom politics is another topic really. The lack of political diversity in newsrooms is deplorable. In a decade of different newsroom jobs I was the only conservative in all but one newsroom. The Associated Press did a poll in the late 1990s of the politics in AP affiliated newsrooms. An astounding number (if memory serves it was 95 percent) identified themselves as Democrats, and of that 95 percent, five percent identified themselves as "left wing" Democrats. I apologize here to anyone who is a Democrat and who doesn't like the inference that "Democrat" equals either "liberal" or "anti-gun." It's safe to say that Democrats are, no average, more liberal than Republicans, and the Democratic stance on gun control is prominently placed in the party's platform.

 

I think that this bias, and it is a bias, isn't what really leads directly to the sorts of firearms errors we've been discussion. Indirectly? Possibly. If you don't like something, you avoid it. If you avoid something, you don't know anything about it.

[BLACKFOOT SASS #11947]

Your referece does not say that "caliber" is a designation meaning one 1/100 of an inch. It says that "caliber" is the diameter of the bore of a firearm USUALLY EXPRESSED IN HUNDREDTHS OF AN INCH.

 

It can be correctly expressed in other ways including milimeters.

 

Blackfoot

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Your referece does not say that "caliber" is a designation meaning one 1/100 of an inch.

Yep. In fact, a more accurate definition is obtainable at a professional dictionary for the shooting sports.

 

http://www.nraila.org/issues/firearmsglossary/

 

CALIBER

The nominal diameter of a projectile of a rifled firearm or the diameter between lands in a rifled barrel. In this country, usually expressed in hundreds of an inch; in Great Britain in thousandths; in Europe and elsewhere in millimeters.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Blastmaster]

 

I guess my point here is don't expect expertise, especially from local television reporters in small markets. They're usually fresh out of college on two-year, non-compete contracts. They'll be there for two years and then move on to the next, larger (more money)market, and if they stay in the business long enough, they'll have some expertise -- but probably not in firearms.

 

I do expect the reporters (or the person editing the script) to know the fundamental differences between a rifle,shotgun, revolver, semi-auto whatever and full automatic anything type of gun. Just like I expect the reporter to know what the fundamental differences between an airplane, car, truck, semi-truck and a train would be.

 

It is unacceptable for a reporter to stand in front of the camera or computer key board and report there was a hell of a 50 "plane" pile up on Interstate xyz roadway during rush hour and the cause was due to a Great Northerner storm on the West Coast of Canada. Just like it is unacceptable for the reporter to report that a shooting took place with massive casulties from a gunman armed with a " full fledged assult type automatic gun" and it was a single victim, from a single wound, from a single shot and the firearm was a single shot bolt action rifle..

 

If the reporter is ignorant about the subject and has to report, then don't go into detail. Like, there was a an accident on Interstate xyz or there was a shooting and details from a more knowledgeable reporter will be coming at a later date, if at all, or please turn to channel xx where they have their stuff together. LOL.

 

Blastmaster

[Pigeonroost Slim , #36403]

So, when the local news interrupted regular programming yesterday to announce the VA Tech shooting; there was no bias when the reported claimed the crime was committed "with an automatic assult pistol". They know the catch words the anti's drum into the populance and they readily grab onto those to foster their "dirty laundry".

 

prs

[Quick Draw Granpaw #48525]

Good morning folks.....I just had to chime in here and say I think the Media in general should

"Report the truth, the whole truth and nothing more so help me God!"

If you were paid to report the truth then do so! If you don't know what your talking about don't report anything until you have all the facts!

We need to stop expecting things to be exact.....38 is a 38 and a 44 is a 44! a 38 is not a 44! A rifle is not a shotgun and automatic weapon and a semi auto are about the same, but your finger has to be fast!

Happy trails

QDG