WaPo Misrepresents Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. Again. Still.

The Truth About Guns ^ | 18 June, 2012 | Bruce W. Krafft

[marktwain]

The Washington Post recently reported on the first meeting of the legislative task force reviewing Florida

[marktwain]

One could argue that the Washington Post has a higher level of journalistic ethics than the New York Times, and that the New York Times used to have a higher level of journalistic ethics than Pravda...

[Dan Nunn]

The newspapers in Florida can’t even get it right (Tampa Bay Slimes leading the way), why should we expect the Compost?

[Venturer]

Traditionally one of the tasks of journalists is to check facts and verify information before presenting it to the public.
...........................................................

I don’t know what tradition you are speaking of, but ever since the Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, the news is pretty much what the owners and editors say it is.They don’t report the news, they make it, and they try to enforce their version of it.

[Secret Agent Man]

“Initiate a confrontation”.

That’s already in the laws. It’s called being a willing participant.

That doesn’t mean you can’t ever talk to someone else, and then they are justified to leap on you and start smashing your head into the pavement.

When you disengage and walk away from someone you are no longer a willing participant. Being attacked from behind by someone you are leaving is not being a willing participant whether you initially talked to him first, or not.

These parents are MF morons. Seriously. I can see where Trayvon got his skittles from.

[Robert Teesdale]

Why the hell would anyone associate journalism with facts?

(Srsly.)

[TWhiteBear]

Another Putzer Prize in the offing for the WaPoo
TWB

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Why . . . would anyone associate journalism with facts?

There, there - don’t be hard on the public unless you were born knowing that journalism is an obvious fraud. I was told that journalism was objective, and so were you. It was in our mother’s milk, because the “objectivity of journalism” has been promoted by the wire services (principally the Associated Press) since the post-Civil War era. There was no other way to make wire services commercially successful than for the newspapers to promote the idea that the objectivity of journalists at the other end of the newswire could be taken for granted.

You have to admit, that’s an enormous propaganda campaign - Joseph Goebbels’ “big lie” campaigns were a mere flash in the pan compared to the campaign promoting the fatuous conceit that journalism is objective.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to get the general public to actually think about the logic of believing someone who tells you that they are objective. Of course it’s absurd - taking your own objectivity for granted is the very essence of subjectivity. So anyone who tells you they’re objective - or who belongs to an organization which tells you that - is the epitome of subjectivity.

[archy]

One could argue that the Washington Post has a higher level of journalistic ethics than the New York Times,

Just kiddyporn publishers, that's all.