Why Can't the Media Ever Get It Right???

[gthaustex]

I just saw this article in the local Austin paper. It was a good article about women shooters and growth of a local club....

http://www.statesman.com/news/lifestyle ... tol/nWNs9/

Right up until this part....

Safety is something the Sure Shots stress above all else, particularly after ex-Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield were killed at a Stephenville shooting range weeks ago. Before newcomers enter the range, they go through a safety briefing, Sure Shots often use a separate part of the range and instructors are on the firing line at all times.

It makes it sound like somehow Chris and Chad were responsible for violating safety rules and ended up dying because if it. Last I heard, the guy they were trying to help snapped and thought he had to get them before they got him. The implication to me (perhaps I am reading too much into it) is that guns are really dangerous if even a Navy SEAL can get killed at a range.....

[baldeagle]

It makes it sound like somehow Chris and Chad were responsible for violating safety rules and ended up dying because if it. Last I heard, the guy they were trying to help snapped and thought he had to get them before they got him. The implication to me (perhaps I am reading too much into it) is that guns are really dangerous if even a Navy SEAL can get killed at a range.....

That's exactly what they want you to think. That's the reason they think it's so cute to say, in reference to the slayings, "If only there had been a good guy with a gun".

It's puerile argument, but that's what liberals specialize in. The lesson to learn from Chris' slaying is that even the best of us can be ambushed. It is not that guns won't do any good. But that's the lesson the liberals want people to learn.

[remington79]

Plain and simple, the media is biased and ignorant of the facts and they don't care to learn them.

[jollyman]

Plain and simple, the media is biased and ignorant of the facts and they don't care to learn them.

You sure got that right!

[RoyGBiv]

They don't want to get it right.

[StewNTexas]

No, they keep their heads in a dark and warm spot (maybe fuzzy?) to be absolutely sure no common sense or truth slips in.

Maybe in the middle of the night, when they are just laying there, they might possibly allow a stray thought to wander, but in the light of day, they go back to their ingrained bias. Kinda like a puppet does.

[RoyGBiv]

It's not that they ignore the truth... They intentionally distort it.
Don't make the mistake of believing they're not smart.

[gthaustex]

All of the above comments reflect my sentiments. It is unfortunate but these days truth and facts seem to matter little, especially when an agenda is in play. It is sensationalism and whatever else is necessary to get to the end goal. Yet these same people would be screaming loud and long if their beloved fairness doctrine was brought to fruition and applied equally across all media so that both sides were available. Of course we will never see both sides of an argument or a story with just the facts.

[baldeagle]

The biggest problem with journalists is that they are ignorant. They know very little about the subjects that they cover, so they're totally dependent upon the experts that they interview for their information. If those experts are biased (and few experts aren't), then the information they give will be slanted. Add to that the fact that the journalist, especially TV journalists, will only use 1/10th or less of the information they're given and they are naturally attracted to those pieces of information that seem the most controversial to them, and you have a recipe for lies served up as truth.

I've been interviewed as a computer expert by local tv channels. Not one of my interviews conveyed the points I tried to convey after the bulk of them was left on the cutting room floor. Journalists are looking for that one sound bite that will sell their story, and they don't really care if it has any relation to the truth.

[AdioSS]

The stuff I saw on C-SPAN today was pretty good.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/311096-3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/311096-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/311096-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

The media does not report, they interpret. They interpret events to support their communist agenda.

Anygunanywhere

[Purplehood]

No, they keep their heads in a dark and warm spot (maybe fuzzy?) to be absolutely sure no common sense or truth slips in.

Maybe in the middle of the night, when they are just laying there, they might possibly allow a stray thought to wander, but in the light of day, they go back to their ingrained bias. Kinda like a puppet does.

A puppet has a bias?

[K.Mooneyham]

It makes it sound like somehow Chris and Chad were responsible for violating safety rules and ended up dying because if it. Last I heard, the guy they were trying to help snapped and thought he had to get them before they got him. The implication to me (perhaps I am reading too much into it) is that guns are really dangerous if even a Navy SEAL can get killed at a range.....

That's exactly what they want you to think. That's the reason they think it's so cute to say, in reference to the slayings, "If only there had been a good guy with a gun".

It's puerile argument, but that's what liberals specialize in. The lesson to learn from Chris' slaying is that even the best of us can be ambushed. It is not that guns won't do any good. But that's the lesson the liberals want people to learn.

I'm pretty much with you on this one. They want everyone to think that this killer just "snapped" and that even the best trained can't protect themselves with firearms, etc. On the first part of that, maybe true, maybe not...I haven't heard him make a statement, or read any sort of report that says exactly why he did it...just a lot of speculation. On the second part, its true as an absolute, because nothing is a guarantee...but I'd sure rather be a guy trained with a firearm and armed if I had to go against armed bad guys than to be unarmed and untrained in a situation like that...I MIGHT lose, but I'd rather take my chances than lose for certain. The liberal-progressives just simply want you to lose...and they always want everything to be someone else's fault, or not the doers responsibility somehow. And all of that runs exactly contrary to my upbringing as a kid and training as an adult.

[Purplehood]

The whole point is that you have a much better chance with a weapon than you do without.

I apologize...I know that I am preaching to the choir.

[The Annoyed Man]

They don't want to get it right.

This. They are not interested in truth or objectivity. They have an agenda, and they want you to adopt it.

I used to think that it was important to watch both conservative and liberal news outlets to get a "balanced" view of what's happening. I no longer feel that way. Here's why:

Both types of outlets report politically unimportant stories more or less the same way. "House fire kills family of five." "Violent storms forecast for DFW area." "Traffic backed up on the High Five." There is no advantage or disadvantage to watching one network over the other, in this regard.

But ANY time there is a story with political implications—guns, entitlements, taxes, Obama's latest screwup, social justice, etc., etc., ad nauseum— I KNOW beyond any shadow of doubt that the liberal outlet will get it wrong. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I KNOW they will distort what the opposition says. I KNOW they will deliberately obscure, coverup, lie about, their guy's screwups, blame it all on Bush, or they SIMPLY WON'T REPORT ON IT AT ALL!!! (Think about how long it took for lamestream media to begin reporting on "Fast & Furious" for example.) And those screwups they DO cover will be reported as great triumphs. It is laughable how unserious they are as reporters of facts. If they told me the sky is blue, I'd look out the window to confirm it for myself before I'd believe a single thing they said.

Consequently, I now turn primarily to conservative sources, and when I seek balance, I look for the libertarian viewpoint. There is literally no difference between Pravda's coverage of Leonid Breshnev and CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/MSNBC's coverage of Obama. The lamestream media has their nose as firmly implanted into Obama's posterior as the North Korean "press" has theirs implanted in Kim Jong-un's. If you want objective reporting about this administration, you're NOT going to find it, not even five minutes of it, from the 527 media.

The sad part is that they have no clue just how disconnected they are from the reality lived by common citizens every day. They know more about the struggles faced by some poverty stricken North Korean than they do about the guy who lives down the block from them. I wouldn't hire any of them to pick up my dog's poop in the back yard. They're not qualified.