Misleading gun stories hurt press image
A headline in the Sept. 17 Denver Post reveals how press manipulation can mislead readers into believing a single incident is part of an epidemic of violence.
http://www.examiner.com/article/misl...id=db_articles
I'm sorta thinking that the press' misleading headlines and article statements hurt us more than they hurt the press ...
This is not news.
Gun owners need to continue to flood their local papers and media outlets (television and radio) with letters, e-mail and phone calls every time their local media pulls this crap.
At least in this area, we've got a lot of gun folk that'll step up to the plate and respond -- and to their credit, even the liberal Seattle rags will print the letters and reader comments. Not so much the local TV stations (Ken Shram, are you out there?) ...
Will
Everything I know about cops, their respect for the citizens of this country and its Constitution, as well as the state of policing in this country ... I learned from the Internet.
The Denver Post is one of America's most disgusting liberal anti-gun rags.A headline in the Sept. 17 Denver Post reveals how press manipulation can mislead readers into believing a single incident is part of an epidemic of violence.
We still have the champion however with The Miami Herald.
No other parrot cage liner comes close.
"A man's got to know his limitations"
'Harry Callahan' Magnum Force 1973
By the same token: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...to-1950-LevelsOriginally Posted by Old Dog
Do you really expect any of the various medias to be anything but Anti-Firearms?
Take my local newspaper for example. I have contacted them for years (and yes, I mean 4 - 5 - 6 years in a year now on a almost weekly basis), about their Anti-Gun policy and attitude.. all to no avail.
There have been times when I've done so 3 or 4 times in the same week.. and have either received some stupid reply about their "First A" rights, that's what they were told by ______ ?, or received NO response at all.
Here's a real example of a newspaper article I read about and the response I sent to the publishing president, executive editor, assistant editor, editor in charge of the local crime page.. as well as the reporter(s) and photographer(s) who wrote/took photo's for the local crime page.
Headline: Man Shot While Walking Dog
Article: A man was shot by someone using a "AUTOMATIC" pistollast night while walking his dog. The victim stated.. yada, yada, yada, etc.
As I pointed out to the newspaper people, the probability of it being a "AUTOMATIC" pistol was somewhere between being none and next to none. I then went ahead and explained the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, while including web site url links to back up my explanation.
There was another time when a high power, rapid fire rifle was mentioned in the crime page article.. only to find out later on it was actually a single shot, bolt action .22.
I could go on and on with all the "LIES" (oops, I mean unintentional misinformation)
The thing that ticks me off is when I contact the media people with all the correct information (and the very next day what do they do?), they go about printing the same information again even though they know the correct facts/information when it comes to firearms. I've even suggested they contact any of the several gun shops in the area for information before printing their articles. Little good that did.
In my mind the above can only mean one thing. Most of the people in the media are "LIARS" and I've seen nothing to disprove that fact.
FireStar M40
Why you never pick a fight with a old man.
Seeing they're too old and tired to fight,
they'll just shoot your butt instead.
I'm a "OLD MAN"!
I own a really wonderful book, received it as a gift. Wilson's Textbook of Automatic Pistols from 1934 (reprinted 1990).the probability of it being a "AUTOMATIC" pistol was somewhere between being none and next to none.
He uses the term "automatic" to describe what we usually call semi-automatic or self-loading pistols.
I understand that we can argue that "automatic" should not or cannot be used to describe semi-automatic pistols, just as some will say that revolvers should not be called pistols. But each term has been used that way in the past.
Easier to avoid confusing by clarifying what can be meant by these terms and by the less-confusing term machine-pistol...
Than by calling folks liars. Just a suggestion, JMHO.
Last edited by Loosedhorse; September 20th, 2012 at 08:14 AM.
Guns, if they have a moral dimension, are good. Without guns, the strong can always dominate the weak; the many can always dominate the few; and men can always dominate women. A gun gives each person an agency equivalent to his (or her) moral standing. In my humble opinion, those who teach correct and proper gun use are doing G-d's work.
I'm not sure that's true, LH. The media *KNOWS* the difference between the operating modes commonly referred to as "automatic" (or "full-auto") and "semi-automatic." While both are indeed autoloaders, there is a critical difference you, I, and they understand completely - the number of bullets which may be fired per pull of the trigger in a properly-functioning example. This information has been given to the media (I'm prepared to go ahead and say they literally ALL have that info by now, though that is of course my own personal opinion), repeatedly in many (most?) cases - and the same old incorrect information keeps getting written up and published. When people who know better keep on using incorrect information for dramatic effect, or to push an agenda, what better way is there to describe it than "lying"?
It might be different if they did indeed give ANY appearance of concern about accuracy of published info, but they don't. They give the appearance of AVOIDING publishing accurate info, because we GIVE it to them, and they do not USE it, or correct the lies they had previously published. I see no benefit in refraining from calling them liars, because they've long since shown that they actively seek to act as such, and with vanishingly-few exceptions, show no interest in putting forth information which counters their lies. Mass-media is NOT firearms-friendly; we have a few isolated friends here and there, but more in "new" media than old. Which I think is just fine, seeing as old media is losing the public's attention in favor of new media. The only time I watch TV news these days is when I'm checking on a storm warning, and I haven't gotten a daily paper in years - I get virtually all of my news needs from an assortment of Internet sources, like pretty much everyone I know. I'm certainly not saying that teh Intarwebz are free from bias or lies, by any means - but as the show used to say, "The truth is out there." It seems to me to be much harder to acquire from regular print or TV news, at least WRT firearms issues.
TL;DR version - if and when "they" lie, call them liars with a clear conscience. It's not like they're ever going to be on our side anyways, so worrying about insulting them by telling the truth about them is pointless.
"It's time we quit solving the wrong problem
The problem is the bad guy, not his tools.
Solve that."
- ArfinGreebly, mod at THR.us
I respect your opinion.I'm not sure that's true, LH.
Certainly, we agree that the "mainstream" media is antigun; and that some antigunners actively seek to confuse the "non-gunnie" public regarding which firearms do what. I think there's little doubt about the latter, given for example Josh Sugarmann's famous quote, referring to semi-auto, so-called "assault weapons":However, I think that some terms (like "semi-automatic" and "machine-pistol") are unambiguous and can properly refer to only one type of firearm; whereas other terms (like "automatic") can refer to full-auto, or semi-auto, or both.The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Besides Wilson's textbook, I give you as example the term "Automatic Colt Pistol"; I think we agree that neither Browning nor Colt were trying to confuse the public by using "automatic" to refer to semi-auto arms.
BTW, after the Aurora shooting, I was surprised by how many non-gunnie friends and acquaintances of mine thought that even semi-automatic rifles were in fact machineguns; when I explained the meaning of the term, most were accepting, and a bit embarrassed by their ignorance. I mentioned that their misconception was of course unsurprising, since the press makes no attempt to educate.
Hence my emphasis on education and clarity (which I think influences people), rather than on calling folks liars (which I think doesn't--or works against us).
Last edited by Loosedhorse; September 20th, 2012 at 02:02 PM.
Guns, if they have a moral dimension, are good. Without guns, the strong can always dominate the weak; the many can always dominate the few; and men can always dominate women. A gun gives each person an agency equivalent to his (or her) moral standing. In my humble opinion, those who teach correct and proper gun use are doing G-d's work.
Well said. In the long run winning advocates and calming the hysterical is our goal, not winning debate points against opponents.Hence my emphasis on education and clarity (which I think influences people), rather than on calling folks liars (which I think doesn't--or works against us).
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." (My mom, and I don't know who she stole it from....)
Paul
People have some respect for the complexity of technology. But almost every ignorant fool thinks he understands money and economics.
Among others,Samuel Butler,Sir Walter Raleigh and Ben Franklin are given attribution. So your Mom is right in there!
"A man's got to know his limitations"
'Harry Callahan' Magnum Force 1973
Actually it is from Alexander Pope's 'Essay on Man'Among others,Samuel Butler,Sir Walter Raleigh and Ben Franklin are given attribution. So your Mom is right in there!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_Man
"A knight is sworn to valor; his heart knows only virtue; his might upholds the weak; his word speaks only truth, and his wrath undoes the wicked."
Looks like the press is losing points with everyone.
U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High
We can only wonder why...the article has no thoughts on that.
But they do note that:This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans...
Independents are...quite dissatisfied with [their] ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.
Guns, if they have a moral dimension, are good. Without guns, the strong can always dominate the weak; the many can always dominate the few; and men can always dominate women. A gun gives each person an agency equivalent to his (or her) moral standing. In my humble opinion, those who teach correct and proper gun use are doing G-d's work.
No change, this is S.O.P. for a dishonest & intellectually corrupt media.
Back when they were debating the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban in Congress, Tom Brokaw of NBC did a voice over to the effect that they wanted to restrict "semi automatic" firearms . . . while showing video of a machine gun being fired.
The NRA and others contacted NBC, but while acknowledging the error, the network refused to broadcast a correction.
Then a week or two later, Tom Brokaw & Co. did it again - machine gun footage with a "semi automatic" voice-over.
Liars. Deliberate, unabashed, unapologetic liars.
And consider this: If they lie so handily about topics we do know something about . . . what about topics we don't know much about?
Pay attention - the inmates really are running the asylum.
They don't care. They only want to move the agenda forward.Misleading gun stories hurt press image
BTW? Did you know the slogan "forward" came from Marxism?
They don't even hide it any more.
The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
