The media?

[CJATE]

Not to hijack another thread, I thought I would start a new one. Just had a conversation with a local store owner.

I don’t get why the media is so hung up on a few key details. Why, when there is a shooting do they say “ handgun� or “pistol� unless it’s a glock. Then it’s a “glock handgun�. Never once do you hear about a shooting a sig, or colt, whathave you.

Why does the caliber never matter until it’s a 9mm? Suddenly the non decrypt “handgun� has become a “9mm handgun�. haven forbid it’s a “glock 9mm�

This is Texas, there has got to be one person on staff who can help script these stories…

[seamusTX]

You forgot "assault weapon."

Newspapers are fond of cliches. Everyone who helps another person is a "Good Samaritan." Every death is a "tragedy."

I will say in their defense that information they have about crimes generally comes from police reports, and the initial police reports may not be specific.

- Jim

[bpet]

Interesting topic. You both got me to thinking. I wonder how many "media" professionals have CHLs? I know that extreme sensitivity to these type issues came with mine in the mail.

[Liberty]

Interesting topic. You both got me to thinking. I wonder how many "media" professionals have CHLs? I know that extreme sensitivity to these type issues came with mine in the mail.

Not many do and the reason is they do most of their reporting from their offices. When they go to the field they go with their producer cameraman sound guy makeup artist etc. If they went and really investigated their stories, I would guess their would be more CHLers amongst them.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Interesting topic. You both got me to thinking. I wonder how many "media" professionals have CHLs? I know that extreme sensitivity to these type issues came with mine in the mail.

I would say not many. Journalism grads tend to be lefties, especially at the grad student level where the people who run the programs frequently act to screen conservatives out.

As lefties, they would not be expected to be CHL type people to the same extent as the general population.

The shining exception is Schultzberger, the publisher of the NYT. That hypocrite has a NYC carry permit (a matter of public record) even while vocally supporting Bloomberg's gun ban campaign.

[stevie_d_64]

The purpose of the "media" as presented here, has changed over the last 20 some odd years...

Where it used to be geared towards informing the public about factual, tangible and witnessed events...

It is now formost in reporting an incident followed by more speculation, on the emotional, political and "pick your demographic" style that is designed to bring about an emotional or other "feelings" about how news should effect you...

It is also geared towards being more of an entertainment source for its viewing audience...

So people like us, who are very knowledgable about an issue when it comes to guns being used in criminal, terrorist or other violent act, they (media) don't care if they do get it "technically" right for those of us who do understand what the differences are between firearm types and other inaccuracies we see almost everyday...

It also seems apparent that if the choatic reporting of a shooting or other gun related story, and the emotions surrounding such a confusing crisis; it plays right into the whole subject becoming such a tinderbox of a political issue that gives the anti's something to use against us everytime something happens to bolster their argument against our side of the issue...

Just my opinion...

[bpet]

CJATE,

Sorry, I never meant to hijack your thread or change the subject. What I was really trying to get at was that it seems the media tends to feed on its' own mush.

They may honestly be trying to report the facts but since they don't know anymore than what they have learned watching their own news broadcasts, if someone describes a pistol as a handgun, that's what they repeat. But, if someone even mentions "Glock" or "9mm" it's something they think they know something about because they've heard it used before and can now seem informed if they repeat and embellish. Since what they've heard is typically negative, than guess what the slant will be for their report?

Believe me, I'm not trying to defend them in any way but I can understand their reluctance to admit they don't know the first thing about what they are saying most of the time and seem content with not getting any smarter.

[NcongruNt]

The purpose of the "media" as presented here, has changed over the last 20 some odd years...

Where it used to be geared towards informing the public about factual, tangible and witnessed events...

It is now formost in reporting an incident followed by more speculation, on the emotional, political and "pick your demographic" style that is designed to bring about an emotional or other "feelings" about how news should effect you...

It is also geared towards being more of an entertainment source for its viewing audience...

So people like us, who are very knowledgable about an issue when it comes to guns being used in criminal, terrorist or other violent act, they (media) don't care if they do get it "technically" right for those of us who do understand what the differences are between firearm types and other inaccuracies we see almost everyday...

It also seems apparent that if the choatic reporting of a shooting or other gun related story, and the emotions surrounding such a confusing crisis; it plays right into the whole subject becoming such a tinderbox of a political issue that gives the anti's something to use against us everytime something happens to bolster their argument against our side of the issue...

Just my opinion...

I think you're missing something more central to the issue. The news is about making money. That's it. It is done under the guise of being factual, accurate, etc. All that really matters to your news outlet is advertising dollars. The difference between times is that now people don't care about the news any more. At one time, nearly everyone watched the nightly news and cared about current events. In such a situation, providing better news was how you won people over from the other news stations. Now, not only is the news market more liquid, but you have non-news television and writing competing with the news. In order to try and recapture the audience, haste and sensationalism are the tools utilized to seduce the ever-dwindling attention span of the public. We no longer have time for things like accuracy, investigation, or correctness in facts. By the time anyone got around to any of that, the next sensation is already under weigh. Audiences no longer respond to prolonged thought and reason. We don't want to have to think about our news and make up our minds. Base emotional response is all we have time for anymore.

[stevie_d_64]

I think you're missing something more central to the issue. The news is about making money. That's it.

That is a great point...Fits real snug in the overall picture on how they should be perceived...