[OT: Vent] Inaccurate media reports

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:51 am

In case anyone hasn't heard, a deranged man entered the Miami Herald headquarters yesterday, looking to settle a score with an editor. He was eventually arrested and no one was hurt.

A day later, various media are reporting that he was armed with a "machine gun," a non-firearm replica, and a semiautomatic pistol.

Why can't they just say he was armed, until they know for sure?

When I first heard "machine gun," I wondered how anyone would know. I couldn't tell an automatic weapon from a semi-auto unless someone pulled the trigger. I doubt one person in a thousand could tell the difference on sight.

Thanks for listening.

- Jim

BobCat · Post by **BobCat** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:47 pm

Jim,

A number of years ago, a relatively wise person told me that when you let some loudmouth moron get your goat, you've got nothing but heartburn - and he's got your goat!

Your observation is correct and relevant to almost every instance in which a news-media person writes about firearms. Recently there was a story about a rancehr in Arizona who was sued for holding trespassers (citizens, I think - not illegals - but of hispanic appearance / extraction) at gunpoint. The writer identified the AR-15 as an "assault rifle" - which (not being select -fire) it is not. I fumed and let him get my goat - but what does that get me? Angry and maybe an ulcer, but it does no good.

I was too lazy to write the author and clarify the difference between an assault rifle and an "assault weapon" (the made-up term for semi-auto military-appearing weapons). Maybe I was more angry at myself, for being lazy, than at the writer (for either being wrong, lazy, or deliberately misleading).

Anyway, just take a deep breath and don't let them get you down. Hang in there.

Regards,
Andrew

Post by **carlson1** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:11 pm

BobCat wrote:Jim,

A number of years ago, a relatively wise person told me that when you let some loudmouth moron get your goat, you've got nothing but heartburn - and he's got your goat

My mom always said "If you do not want them to get your goat, then don't leave him tied up outside."

Our wonderful News Media.

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:13 pm

BobCat wrote:A number of years ago, a relatively wise person told me that when you let some loudmouth moron get your goat, you've got nothing but heartburn - and he's got your goat!

You're right, but sometimes I've just got to rant. I should write letters to the editor, but I found over 80 stores in different publications with conflicting information.

I know I have better things to do, like go shooting in a few minutes.

- Jim

lrb111 · Post by **lrb111** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:03 pm

One of the stories i read just calle it a "toy gun".

kanders · Post by **kanders** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:00 pm

The subject of this topic, as it relates to my local TV news programs, has really been bugging me, and I think I've recently had an epiphany:

It's not that the local media are all anti-gun biased (bulletproof flame suit ON), it's that they are all pitifully stupid. The directors, writers, editors, reporters - all of 'em!

I wouldn't even watch the news, but my wife likes to, so I sometimes "get" to with her. Every time I'm amazed at how incomplete, inaccurate, vague, and sensational all their stories are.

One example was a story several months ago about a person who was bitten by a bat. The graphic behind the reporter was a dramatic, menacing picture of a bat with the words BAT ATTACK above it. Of course the bat didn't attack anyone; they never have, and they never will. The reporter went on to explain that the person had picked the bat up off the ground and was bitten. The rest of the story consisted of a pathetic interview with the "victim" and how he had to get rabies shots and some statements from the reporter about increasing occurrences of bat bites lately. I don't think they ever mentioned that a bat found lying on the ground probably is sick, probably with rabies, and shouldn't be touched. Unbelievable.

Then there was last night, with twenty minutes of vapid stories about the cold weather and mindless comments from people on the street about how they didn't bring a coat to work that morning, had to go home and fire up the heater, had to buy some firewood, had to wrap their pipes, etc. You'd have thought a major hurricane was coming, instead of normal winter weather.

<sigh>... OK, I feel better now.

casselthief · Post by **casselthief** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:10 pm

i feel ya. my ole lady calls me the other day and is all, "I NEED NEW WIPERS, WAAAAAAAAH!!!"

you

couldn't have

thought of this

a month ago??????

so I'm standing in line with the other eleventy billion people buying wiper blades......

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:25 pm

kanders wrote:It's not that the local media are all anti-gun biased (bulletproof flame suit ON), it's that they are all pitifully stupid. The directors, writers, editors, reporters - all of 'em!

I stand by the old saying, "Do not attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity."

Certainly many media people are anti-gun, especially in the top national ranks. The rest are ignorant. If you read coverage of anything you, personally, know about, you can see the mistakes.

They are also in love with clichÃ©s like "assault weapon" and "machine gun."

kanders wrote:Then there was last night, with twenty minutes of vapid stories about the cold weather ...

I think it's a hoot is when they call 30Â° weather "extreme, dangerous cold." Try minus 30.

That's why I don't watch TV.

- Jim

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:23 pm

kanders wrote:The subject of this topic, as it relates to my local TV news programs, has really been bugging me, and I think I've recently had an epiphany:

It's not that the local media are all anti-gun biased (bulletproof flame suit ON), it's that they are all pitifully stupid. The directors, writers, editors, reporters - all of 'em!

I wouldn't even watch the news, but my wife likes to, so I sometimes "get" to with her. Every time I'm amazed at how incomplete, inaccurate, vague, and sensational all their stories are.

One example was a story several months ago about a person who was bitten by a bat. The graphic behind the reporter was a dramatic, menacing picture of a bat with the words BAT ATTACK above it. Of course the bat didn't attack anyone; they never have, and they never will. The reporter went on to explain that the person had picked the bat up off the ground and was bitten. The rest of the story consisted of a pathetic interview with the "victim" and how he had to get rabies shots and some statements from the reporter about increasing occurrences of bat bites lately. I don't think they ever mentioned that a bat found lying on the ground probably is sick, probably with rabies, and shouldn't be touched. Unbelievable.

Then there was last night, with twenty minutes of vapid stories about the cold weather and mindless comments from people on the street about how they didn't bring a coat to work that morning, had to go home and fire up the heater, had to buy some firewood, had to wrap their pipes, etc. You'd have thought a major hurricane was coming, instead of normal winter weather.

<sigh>... OK, I feel better now.

You are not alone, and are in good company...