Firearms and the media

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

As I said above, there is bias in newsrooms. I just don't see that as the heart of the problem of bad firearms reporting. Usually that dreaded 40 mm Glock is the result of poor knowledge, not politics.

 

And (thank you AP) we've lost the battle on "assault rifle" (and there are inroads on "assault pistol"). If its semiautomatic, looks vaguely military, and has a detachable magazine, the Associated Press Stylebook defines it as an assault rifle, and that's the reference most reporters use.

 

For non-assault rifles (and yes, this distinction gets made from time to time), it's hard for those who don't use firearms to distinguish between a rifle and a shotgun. All they really know is that a shotgun looks "bigger" and is somehow scary. Both are fired from the shoulder and they have (from a distance) similar profiles. I'm glad any time they don't say "shoulder mounted" at this point.

 

I guess my real point is that while the reporting may be incompetent, it isn't usually intentionally dishonest. For every "semiautomatic assault pistol" (or the much discussed .50 caliber-rifle-purchased-over-the internet story on the one network a couple of years ago) that are obvious cases of bias, there are far more that are the results of that combination of bad shooting education, adrenaline, poorly informed sources and rapidly approaching deadlines that is the world of a journalist (any journalist, radio, television or print).

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

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

 

One of my journalism instructors used to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to learn how to report FACT, not TRUTH. If you want to discuss truth, there are excellent philosophy courses across campus."

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

One of my journalism instructors used to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to learn how to report FACT, not TRUTH. If you want to discuss truth, there are excellent philosophy courses across campus."

 

....you must have had one of them liberal instructors...sounds like a course Eric Holder took

 

 

GG ~

[Long Branch Louie]

But when you say "automatic assault pistol", that's about as far from fact as it gets, and was ONLY done for sensationalism, NOT because it was ACCURATE or NECESSARY!

[Blastmaster]

 

I guess my real point is that while the reporting may be incompetent, it isn't usually intentionally dishonest. For every "semiautomatic assault pistol" (or the much discussed .50 caliber-rifle-purchased-over-the internet story on the one network a couple of years ago) that are obvious cases of bias, there are far more that are the results of that combination of bad shooting education, adrenaline, poorly informed sources and rapidly approaching deadlines that is the world of a journalist (any journalist, radio, television or print).

 

 

We will have to agree to disagree. I disagree with your statements. It is my believe that the News companies (TV & Newspapers) intentionally sensationalize the events so they can sell more papers or get better ratings. Bottom line, stretch the smidgen of information on the topic as far as they dare (and beyond) to make a splash on the front page so they can sell more papers and increase or maintain the profitability. They (News organizations) feed the hungry folks that like to hear the gore of tragedy and drama, not the good deeds or happy ending events that are out there. Sorry state of affairs.

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

We will have to agree to disagree. I disagree with your statements. It is my believe that the News companies (TV & Newspapers) intentionally sensationalize the events so they can sell more papers or get better ratings. Bottom line, stretch the smidgen of information on the topic as far as they dare (and beyond) to make a splash on the front page so they can sell more papers and increase or maintain the profitability. They (News organizations) feed the hungry folks that like to hear the gore of tragedy and drama, not the good deeds or happy ending events that are out there. Sorry state of affairs.

 

If that were the case, who would be the active agent of the sensationalism? The person who wrote the sensational words, etcetera? That would be the reporter, right? And the reporter would have to be trained to do this.

 

I was trained as a reporter. I never got that training. I never once worked with the marketing departments of any of the several publications I worked for to "sell more newspapers." I don't know any reporter who did so. Reporters at every single publication where I worked ran a running war with the advertising departments, because the newsroom always got the dirty end of the budget deal -- we didn't generate revenue, so we didn't get the new computers or office furniture (you name it).

 

What reporters want is not more newspapers sold, but more front-page stories or "opening leads" (TV), because those things improve their resumes and allow them to move on to bigger markets where they'll make more pay. They aren't at all involved with the "sellling more newspapers" (making higher ratings) equation. That simply isn't how the industry works.

 

The news frequently IS negative, rather than happy, but again that isn't so much a marketing decision as a news one. You don't report it when the plane lands safely -- that happens all the time. You report it when the plane crashes, that seldom happens which is what makes it newsworthy.

[Quick Draw Granpaw #48525]

One of my journalism instructors used to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to learn how to report FACT, not TRUTH. If you want to discuss truth, there are excellent philosophy courses across campus."

 

I still don't get your point.....yes he shot the deer...I admit this is true.

The fact is he shot the deer in 1998 and in Oregon!

Sounds more like politics than reporting the news!

Just my nickles worth, God bless America and all our Troops

QDG/Mike

[Sergeant Smokepole #29248L]

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.

 

 

Pard,

 

I would never, ever in a million years put my name to anything that I wasn't sure of the facts. If I were ignorant of the subject, I would say so in a preface or take the effort to verify the facts. You can get by without verification if you are quoting somebody but it is still sloppy journalism to print inaccuracies..

[Sergeant Smokepole #29248L]

One of my journalism instructors used to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to learn how to report FACT, not TRUTH. If you want to discuss truth, there are excellent philosophy courses across campus."

 

 

And that is pure doubletalk... Plain and simple.

[Blastmaster]

If that were the case, who would be the active agent of the sensationalism? The person who wrote the sensational words, etcetera? That would be the reporter, right? And the reporter would have to be trained to do this.

 

I agree, reporters are too stupid to be trained. LOL. Gosh, do all reporters just sit there and wait to be 'trained'. Surely, there are a few that get the hint that if they sensationalize, they will get a reward by the boss....What does the boss want? More circulation, thus a stronger business. Awe, more circulation? Then the advertisement department can capitalize on more....advertisements, and that brings in the bucks. Well go figure. I am not against more ciruclation, more profit, stronger organization, but when you have to exagerate(sp) bad things happening to good people, well that stinks.

 

I was trained as a reporter. I never got that training. I never once worked with the marketing departments of any of the several publications I worked for to "sell more newspapers." I don't know any reporter who did so. Reporters at every single publication where I worked ran a running war with the advertising departments, because the newsroom always got the dirty end of the budget deal -- we didn't generate revenue, so we didn't get the new computers or office furniture (you name it).

 

What reporters want is not more newspapers sold, but more front-page stories or "opening leads" (TV), because those things improve their resumes and allow them to move on to bigger markets where they'll make more pay. They aren't at all involved with the "sellling more newspapers" (making higher ratings) equation. That simply isn't how the industry works.

 

Bull!!! Yep the reporter wants to be the 'first' on the scene BUT to make a name, they will make up shit before it happens in antisipation of being somewhat corret to be first,thus advancing their career.

 

 

The news frequently IS negative, rather than happy, but again that isn't so much a marketing decision as a news one. You don't report it when the plane lands safely -- that happens all the time. You report it when the plane crashes, that seldom happens which is what makes it newsworthy.

 

Equally Bull!! There probably is a bunch of good sameritan (sp) stories with happy endings that are not reported vs the blood and guts tragidy story of some poor soles misfortune. Ya know, I am so darn tired of any shooting being related to the Columbine High School Shooting of how many years ago?

[Jeremiah Sullivan]

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.

 

Okay.

I think I will keep your argument for tolerance of the unprofessional product and incompetence of your average beat reporter in mind every time the press reminds us that they, the lofty professional press, are special and have special rights not extended to the rest of humanity or to the government due to their special professional status.

 

Just yesterday there was a report of a court decision that denied this special status to a mere blogger because the blogger was not a member of the professional journalist class.

 

With all due respect to your professional credentials, my personal and professional experience over the past FIFTY years has been that in every single event in which I have been either a participant or witness, which has been covered by the press, the vaunted press professionals have gotten "it" wrong. From the names of children standing around a municipal Christmas tree (NY World Telegram and Sun 1957) to the hysterical coverage by an LA TV station of a "major explosion" (1972 - it was a failed steam line expansion joint) to espionage cases (1985)and revolutions (e.g. CNN, Manila, February 1986), the sacred duty of the journalists has been to sell more Preparation-H, not to tell the truth, to inform the public, or to defend the Constitution. Facts be damned, sell the sizzle. It it doesn't sizzle, fake the sizzle and sell that ad space.

 

Your mileage may vary.

 

As usual, my opinions are my own and do not represent the positions of any former or current employers.

[Slowhand Bob, 24229]

Thats why I only read the Enquirer and the Globe while standing in line at the grocers. Integrity in journalism, now dawnt eat thet Grandmaw!

[Ranger Sgt. Jake McCandless #3368]

Thats why I only read the Enquirer and the Globe while standing in line at the grocers. Integrity in journalism, now dawnt eat thet Grandmaw!

Bob You crack me up,LOL ! Thanks I need that Sgt. Jake

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

There are some that are better than others I reckon. Too bad that the others outweigh the good'uns.

 

GG

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

Do it for a living for a decade and get back to me.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Do it for a living for a decade and get back to me.

 

No thanks - I'd only report for the truth (facts)...meaning I wouldn't make a dime

 

GG ~

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

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?

 

Can I use that same argument about politics, ecology, finance, the obits, education, and all the other news that has become so muddled and inaccurate that I only allow my wife to keep subscribing to a paper for the opinions and comics? I'm an avid reader, but I gave up on newspapers about five years ago and never looked back.

[Wolf Bane, SASS 13557]

As a lifelong journalist -- newspapers, magazines and now television -- and as a person who has both run the most successful media program for the firearms industry and written extensively on media bias on firearms, I think Oddnews is right in many ways, but not completely there. IMHO, reportage on firearms, the gun culture and pro/anti-gun issues are held to a diferent, and much lower, standard than any other topic that routinely covered. I think (was it J-BAR who said this?) that any reporter who so badly bungled and/or misreported financial news or, heck, even the local school board meeting would be fired on the spot. However, the problem in coverage about us, and about guns, is that as Oddnews has noted, newsrooms are RELENTLESSLY and UNCONDITIONALLY homogeneous...they are the most politically correct places in earth. Quick story...one of Indiana Jackson's closest and oldest friends was a professional journalist...one night we were playing cards and sipping adult beverages when Indiana's friend began explaining that the newsroom she worked it was "perfectly" diverse, by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Indiana, because she is relentless politically incorrect, asked, "How many of your reporters and editors have a CCW?" None, of course, was the answer. How many own guns? None. How many believe the Second Amendment confers an individual right to possess arms? None. Et cetera.

 

The underlying problem that has led to the bias against our culture in the MSM is rooted in the lack of philosophical diversty in newsroms...If "everyone" believes the same thing, there is a dangerous lack of mental questioning, a lack of introspection and a lack of the professional rigor that I saw routinely applied to every other topic in the newsroom. Through the NSSF Media Education Program and other pro-gun efforts, I have taken literally hundreds of antigun media to the range. I am proud to say that many were appalled when they realized the level of their ignorance and their unquestioned adherence to a specific politcal viewpoint. It was far from unanimous, however.

 

I have met a lot of deadlines and I understand how brutal and unforgiving they can be. But if you can't get the story right, you are not a journalist, but a paid hack.

 

Wolf Bane

SASS13557

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

View PostBLACKFOOT SASS #11947, on 09 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

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.or...rearmsglossary/

 

Quote

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

 

Which is why we have things like the 5" 38 caliber, and the venerable Mk 7, 16" 50 caliber.

[Constable Nelson #11784]

My concerns about the media(and I live on the other side of the Pacific so it is clear that this is a widespread problem) are

 

1. Even when they interview you and (apparently) write down/record the answers you give.. they then misquote you or make things up. (In EVERY situation I have been personally involved in which was reported in the media.. from Shooting matches to plane crashes.. the newspaper articles/reports either contained errors of fact, misquoting or both.) When you ask a question, and are given an answer in plain english... how hard is it to report that?

 

2. Corrections/apologies for errors in reportage are NEVER given the prominence of the original incorrect article.

 

3. The media holds EVERY other professsion to a standard of ethics, accuracy and behaviour that it will NOT apply to itself. This actually appears to be entrenched in US law too.... to win a libel case against a media outlet the plaintiff must PROVE MALICE.. not just prove that the report was incorrect, and damaging to them.

 

How fun for someone whose business or reputation is wrecked by a poorly researched, hurried and incorrect media report....

 

But the media have deadlines you see (can't let those other rotten sections of said media get the report out before us! We may not make as much money!) SO that makes it all OK... well.. except for the innocent victim...

 

But "we" decide what's newsworthy anyway.. so noone will ever hear about them... so that's just dandy too.

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

If "everyone" believes the same thing, there is a dangerous lack of mental questioning, a lack of introspection and a lack of the professional rigor that I saw routinely applied to every other topic in the newsroom.

 

If everyone agrees, then it means that only one person is doing the thinking.

 

The others are just butt-kissing and along for the ride.

[Justin O Lawman,SASS#7672]

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

 

 

 

one word-------Google!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Utah Bob #35998]

One of my journalism instructors used to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to learn how to report FACT, not TRUTH. If you want to discuss truth, there are excellent philosophy courses across campus."

 

He was right. But they should get Facts right.

 

Is saying a man had an "arsenal" in his house when he had a case of ammunition and 5 firearms a factual statement or is it sensationalism? And the reporting is rife with the trigger words that are guaranteed to get attention rather than state facts. "The neighborhood looked like a War Zone". Really?

And my favorite "it sent shock waves through the community". Where's the temblor?

 

 

 

And I can't believe you pulled the Walk-a-Mile-in-my-Moccasins card. Shame on you.

Do it for a living for a decade and get back to me.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

As a lifelong journalist -- newspapers, magazines and now television -- and as a person who has both run the most successful media program for the firearms industry and written extensively on media bias on firearms, I think Oddnews is right in many ways, but not completely there. IMHO, reportage on firearms, the gun culture and pro/anti-gun issues are held to a diferent, and much lower, standard than any other topic that routinely covered. I think (was it J-BAR who said this?) that any reporter who so badly bungled and/or misreported financial news or, heck, even the local school board meeting would be fired on the spot. However, the problem in coverage about us, and about guns, is that as Oddnews has noted, newsrooms are RELENTLESSLY and UNCONDITIONALLY homogeneous...they are the most politically correct places in earth. Quick story...one of Indiana Jackson's closest and oldest friends was a professional journalist...one night we were playing cards and sipping adult beverages when Indiana's friend began explaining that the newsroom she worked it was "perfectly" diverse, by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Indiana, because she is relentless politically incorrect, asked, "How many of your reporters and editors have a CCW?" None, of course, was the answer. How many own guns? None. How many believe the Second Amendment confers an individual right to possess arms? None. Et cetera.

 

The underlying problem that has led to the bias against our culture in the MSM is rooted in the lack of philosophical diversty in newsroms...If "everyone" believes the same thing, there is a dangerous lack of mental questioning, a lack of introspection and a lack of the professional rigor that I saw routinely applied to every other topic in the newsroom. Through the NSSF Media Education Program and other pro-gun efforts, I have taken literally hundreds of antigun media to the range. I am proud to say that many were appalled when they realized the level of their ignorance and their unquestioned adherence to a specific politcal viewpoint. It was far from unanimous, however.

 

I have met a lot of deadlines and I understand how brutal and unforgiving they can be. But if you can't get the story right, you are not a journalist, but a paid hack.

 

Wolf Bane

SASS13557

 

 

Sounds reasonable to me....and your last sentence is spot on

 

GG ~

[Cowboy Junky]

But if the Government sells guns to crooks that seems to get left out of those same papers!? Lots of "sizzle" there but very little effort to sell it.

[The Shoer 27979]

 

I have met a lot of deadlines and I understand how brutal and unforgiving they can be. But if you can't get the story right, you are not a journalist, but a paid hack.

 

Wolf Bane

SASS13557

 

you said a mouth full in that one sentence Mr Bane

[Sergeant Smokepole #29248L]

fact, not truth...

 

Here's the definition:

 

fact

[fakt]   Origin

Way With Words Group USA

Quality Transcripts. Upfront Rates Fast. All Volumes. Call 18888081907

TranscriptionUnitedStates.com

Become a Social Worker

With an Online Master's from USC. No Relocating Required. Learn More!

msw.USC.edu/Virtual-Academic-Center

Are You Writing a Book?

Get a free guide to professional editing & publishing options.

Ads

www.iUniverse.com

fact

   [fakt] Show IPA

noun

1.

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2.

something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3.

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4.

something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5.

Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

Bible Dictionary

Search Verses, Daily Bible Quotes, & More with the Free Bible Toolbar

www.DailyBibleGuide.com

Fact and Opinion Lesson

Search Teacher Reviewed Lessons & Find Fact and Opinion Lessons Now!

Ads

LessonPlanet.com/Fact-and-Opinion

Idioms

6.

after the fact, Law . after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.

7.

before the fact, Law . prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.

8.

in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

[Buckhorn Woodie]

"If you can't get the story right, you are not a journalist, but a paid hack."

 

Wolf Bane

SASS13557

 

 

Now that is an example of good writing

 

[Long Branch Louie]

I get up and go to work every morning, have been for a LOT longer than a decade. Don't have a flashy job, I work as a manufacturing engineering technician/tool & die maker. I have deadlines everyday, projects that must be completed so customers get their parts, many times it's for the US Military. I make mistakes just like everybody else. But if I did my job wrong 20% of the time, or 10% of the time or even 5% of the time, I'd be out of a job. I'm expected to be able to do what is necessary, based on my education and experience, to have a harmonious outcome most of the time. Why should a college educated reporter be held to any different standard?

[J-BAR #18287]

fact, not truth...

 

Here's the definition:

 

fact

[fakt]   Origin

Way With Words Group USA

Quality Transcripts. Upfront Rates Fast. All Volumes. Call 18888081907

TranscriptionUnitedStates.com

Become a Social Worker

With an Online Master's from USC. No Relocating Required. Learn More!

msw.USC.edu/Virtual-Academic-Center

Are You Writing a Book?

Get a free guide to professional editing & publishing options.

Ads

www.iUniverse.com

fact

   [fakt] Show IPA

noun

1.

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2.

something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3.

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4.

something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5.

Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

Bible Dictionary

Search Verses, Daily Bible Quotes, & More with the Free Bible Toolbar

www.DailyBibleGuide.com

Fact and Opinion Lesson

Search Teacher Reviewed Lessons & Find Fact and Opinion Lessons Now!

Ads

LessonPlanet.com/Fact-and-Opinion

Idioms

6.

after the fact, Law . after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.

7.

before the fact, Law . prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.

8.

in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

 

 

 

Your discussion of truth versus fact reminds me of the old story about a Russian/USA track meet:

 

PRAVDA headline: "Russian runner places second; American runner finishes next to last."

 

AP News: "American beats Russian in two-man race".

 

 

Both are true, both are factual. But there is still some spin.

[Oddnews SASS# 24779]

As a lifelong journalist -- newspapers, magazines and now television -- and as a person who has both run the most successful media program for the firearms industry and written extensively on media bias on firearms, I think Oddnews is right in many ways, but not completely there. IMHO, reportage on firearms, the gun culture and pro/anti-gun issues are held to a diferent, and much lower, standard than any other topic that routinely covered. I think (was it J-BAR who said this?) that any reporter who so badly bungled and/or misreported financial news or, heck, even the local school board meeting would be fired on the spot. However, the problem in coverage about us, and about guns, is that as Oddnews has noted, newsrooms are RELENTLESSLY and UNCONDITIONALLY homogeneous...they are the most politically correct places in earth. Quick story...one of Indiana Jackson's closest and oldest friends was a professional journalist...one night we were playing cards and sipping adult beverages when Indiana's friend began explaining that the newsroom she worked it was "perfectly" diverse, by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Indiana, because she is relentless politically incorrect, asked, "How many of your reporters and editors have a CCW?" None, of course, was the answer. How many own guns? None. How many believe the Second Amendment confers an individual right to possess arms? None. Et cetera.

 

The underlying problem that has led to the bias against our culture in the MSM is rooted in the lack of philosophical diversty in newsroms...If "everyone" believes the same thing, there is a dangerous lack of mental questioning, a lack of introspection and a lack of the professional rigor that I saw routinely applied to every other topic in the newsroom. Through the NSSF Media Education Program and other pro-gun efforts, I have taken literally hundreds of antigun media to the range. I am proud to say that many were appalled when they realized the level of their ignorance and their unquestioned adherence to a specific politcal viewpoint. It was far from unanimous, however.

 

I have met a lot of deadlines and I understand how brutal and unforgiving they can be. But if you can't get the story right, you are not a journalist, but a paid hack.

 

Wolf Bane

SASS13557

 

 

Yes the uniformity of a given political view in every single newsroom is depressing. It leads to spectrum bias -- the bias where no one doing it actually realizes they're BEING biased becaues they all share the same viewpoint. I found espousing a conservative viewpoint to be much worse for my career than doing a bad job of reportage.

[Sheriff Oso, SASS #57788L]

Like many previous posters on this thread, I have been in the "J" business for all my adult life (started in 77, but dont want to do the math - too depressing). All my time has been in TeeVee. The problem with TeeVee is even worse than with print. With print, it is just words. In TeeVee the reporter often writes up to the last second, then hands the script to an editor, who has NOT been out on the story with the reporter and has little idea about what "use file video here" means.

 

Not only have I seen it with guns (voice over says "semi-automatic" and video shows FULL auto), but with other things as well. In Ft. Worth, TX the F-16 is built by Lockheed-Martin (used to be General Dynamics). Several times I saw f-15's or FA-18's when the story was about the single engine F-16. I complained bitterly to the video editors, the reporters, and the management.

 

The usual response I got was "Automatic/ Semi-automatic, F-16/F-15... what's the difference?"

I tried to explain that anyone who knows aircraft etc. and sees erroneous video will automatically question every other purported fact.

 

My complaints fell on deaf ears...until one fateful day. The Executive Producer was a HUGE baseball fan. Mickey Mantle had just died. We were slamming an obit together. We had old B&W file of the Yankees. I was the video editor, and I was sick and tired of inaccurate copy and wrong video being used. So, for Mr. Mantle's obit I used some Mickey file, but I also used some Roger Maris file.

 

The EP came storming into into my edit room, screaming that I had used the wrong video. I just looked dumb (easy to do for me!) and said, "F-16 / F-15... Semi-automatic/automatic ... #7/#9 ....WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE"?

 

THE NEXT DAY A NEW LAW WAS LAID DOWN THAT ALL REPORTERS WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING CORRECT FILE TAPE TO EDITORS.

 

I hated to do that to Mr. Mantle, but I HAD to make the point hit home, and I succeeded. To this day that rule still stands at one DFW tv station!

 

"If one story has innacuracies, viewers who spot the inaccuracy will question the validity of the rest of the stories." Accuracy is #1 there now.

 

FWIW ...SOso

[Old Scatterbrain]

one word-------Google!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, 'cuz there's no bad information on the internet, right?

 

Heck, look at some of the heated disputes on this very forum over reloading practices, concealed carry and so forth.

[Long Branch Louie]

Yeah, 'cuz there's no bad information on the internet, right?

 

Heck, look at some of the heated disputes on this very forum over reloading practices, concealed carry and so forth.

Google, firearms reference books with pictures and countless sites that will show photos and descriptions like Wikipedia are all out there. If I make a part that specifies a 7mm thread (an oddball) for the Government, is it OK to just do 6 or 8mm because I didn't check? Reporters have a job to do like everyone else, they should make an honest attempt to do so, and from what I seen from some posters here in the media field, a lot of them do.....