Skip to comments.Does reporting on Baltimore shooting show ignorance, laziness or intent? (MD)
Posted on 12/08/2009 3:42:24 AM PST by marktwain
Regular readers are familiar with the concept of "Authorized Journalists"professionals who work for "mainstream media" and are considered (sometimes by government and generally by themselves) to be the exclusive authoritative and credible purveyors of information. Think "Only Ones" with a press pass. These readers are also familiar with the many failings we've demonstrated where establishment reporters bring personal bias, along with "sins of omission and commission" into supposedly straight news stories. And then there are glaring errors where the only explanations seem the writers do not know (or fact-check) their subject matter, or they know damn well but have an agenda to promote.
My experience as a news consumer is that this is pervasive, and not just limited to guns. But since guns are what we're here to talk about, let's dig up once again the lie about "assault weapons" that was calculated with deceiving intent, and has been dutifully parroted by the "Authorized Journalists" ever since. From the Violence Policy Center:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I remember once reading a story of a policeman that was actually armed with a Glock and the weapon was described by the reporter as the Policeman’s service revolver.
They’re usually 40mm.
If you're really good you can shoot 4 of them at the same time.
Should be .40 Caliber.
Some in the press have been known to describe a .40 cal. as “a 40 mm.”.
I think Sig was making fun of them for that error.
I’m usually pretty good at catching the sarc. Missed it here.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
I’m not defending the media but they make so many mistakes that some Freepers assumed they were wrong when two reporters wrote about a “.22 Long Rifle Pistol” and a “.45 Auto Revolver” which was correct.
You’ve never had a 40mm semi automatic assault pistol service revolver?
Turn in your N.R.A. card.