"Shoot to Kill Law"...... Sheeeeesssshhhh

[HankB]

Something to consider . . .

When the media shows obvious bias against firearms - sometimes rising to the level of deliberate falsification (i.e., lies) - we recognize it, since we have knowledge of the subject.

Do you think they're telling the truth about other topics we have little or know first-hand knowledge of?

[lrb111]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting tired of our little local news affiliates making idiotic statements like "the so-called Castle Doctrine, better known as the Shoot to Kill law...."

I have emailed our local nbc affiliate several times requesting that the so-called reporters actually READ the text of the Castle Doctrine and then explain how the use of deadly force now takes on a more deadly nature than before the legislation.

This must be a "top down" indigenous problem in NBC and affiliates. Our local NBC, and only them use the exact same language. One of the local twits is particularly aggressive on this issue. If there is any saving grace, she is similarly clueless on nearly all other issues, too.

[mr surveyor]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting tired of our little local news affiliates making idiotic statements like "the so-called Castle Doctrine, better known as the Shoot to Kill law...."

I have emailed our local nbc affiliate several times requesting that the so-called reporters actually READ the text of the Castle Doctrine and then explain how the use of deadly force now takes on a more deadly nature than before the legislation.

This must be a "top down" indigenous problem in NBC and affiliates. Our local NBC, and only them use the exact same language. One of the local twits is particularly aggressive on this issue. If there is any saving grace, she is similarly clueless on nearly all other issues, too.

I'm not sure about the "nbc" thing. I quit depending on out local abc station in Tyler many years ago when they showed their ultra liberal slant towards environmentalism and "gun control".

I do not even trust the FOX News network on matters concerning Second Amendment Rights, or anything else firearms related. You have to remember that the vast majority of the media moguls are born and bred "city slickers" that really believe that it is the duty of the local or state police to "protect" them. I personally like Hannity, but I really do not think he has a clue about firearms in the hands of the citizens, and how they are instrumental in preserving the very freedoms he himself so strongly promotes. We have a tough road ahead.

[seamusTX]

When the media shows obvious bias against firearms - sometimes rising to the level of deliberate falsification (i.e., lies) - we recognize it, since we have knowledge of the subject.

Do you think they're telling the truth about other topics we have little or know first-hand knowledge of?

If you know anything first-hand about an incident reported in the media, you will see inaccuracy and biases.

I wouldn't use the word lies too quickly.

Here's how reporting works: Speed is paramount. TV wants to get things on the air immediately, or at least by the morning or evening news. Newspaper stories close in the early evening.

Reporters interview first-hand witnesses that they can find and talk to. Those witnesses may be unreliable and have conflicting accounts.

They also interview responders, police officers in the case of crimes, and police spokespersons and assistant prosecutors who are three steps removed from actual events.

If there is some controversy, they will call "experts" from their Rolodex. In the case of firearms incidents, they will undoubtedly have someone from an anti-RKBA group, and possibly someone from the NRA or a certain gun-shop owner who has been in the Houston media frequently.

They do little independent research; it takes too long, and it's just not in their job description.

Newspapers used to employ fact-checkers. Fact-checkers would verify things like the spelling and job titles of the people quoted, places, times, etc. As a result of cost-cutting, newspapers have fewer fact checkers. I don't know if TV has them at all.

As a result, if you look on page 2 of any newspaper, you will find corrections of the spelling of names and other such details from stories that ran earlier.

Two things to look for are quotations and paraphrases.

Words enclosed in quotation marks are supposed to be the exact words of the person quoted. If a police officer is quoted as saying a criminal had a "Glock AK-47" or some such nonsense, it is the mistake of the person quoted. (It would be nice if the reporter had enough expertise to ask follow-up questions, but they generally don't.)

When you see phrases like police allege that or witnesses said that, those are shortened version of a statement that was too long to quote or not caught on tape. They can contain mistakes by the original speaker or the reporter or downstream editor.

Actual fabrication does occur. It is a career death penalty when caught in print journalism. TV, unfortunately, has become squishy and tolerates more of it unless it results in lawsuits.

The bottom line (if you've read this far, thanks), is that you have to read and listen skeptically and consider all news reports a quick first approximation of what might actually have happened. That is equally true whether you agree with the gist of the story or not.

- Jim

[Mage34]

seamusTX, good post. I think you are right, even when police take statements from witnesses at the scene if there are 10 people there will be 10 different stories, but on the other hand I think the news takes a little to much leeway in what they call the TRUTH these days. I also don't like the way they have a tendency to spin it, while telling the truth but using words and allegations that make people see things in the wrong light.

[mr surveyor]

seamusTX


with only 54 years of experience in this world thus far, I have found no better explaination of the "media" than what you just offered.

surv

[seamusTX]

I agree completely. The media are way too fond of clichés. They use words and phrases like gunman and took the law into his own hands. They call everyone who is shot a victim, even if it was a criminal committing robbery or attempted murder. They interview the bereaved relatives of these criminal "victims" to get the coveted shots of crying mothers and children.

TV in particular has almost lost the distinction between news and opinion.

Remember the story of the guy who shot in self-defense on a bus in Houston? Based on news stories, a lot of people were ready to measure his neck. He was no-billed.

P.s.: The crime beat is one of the lowest-ranking jobs at newspapers, along with covering routine government meetings. It usually goes to rookie reporters.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

That was a good explanation, but let me offer one further key insight: generally speaking, reporters know nothing about anything. Their job isn't to know anything, it's to serve as a conduit between the source and the viewer, while looking good. The few who have specialized experience tend to stick to those fields, like medical or technology reporting. (I purposely omitted sports reporting, since sports reporters also tend to know nothing about anything, and perhaps even less about sports.)

Not that it matters. Reporters are no longer allowed to use much discretion. They cover what they're told to cover, and they simply report what the subjects have to say. Unless it's an investigative report, the reporter will seldom point out that one of the parties is clearly lying, even when the lie is obvious and taking place right on camera.

There's a reason I never put that BA-Journalism to use...

Kevin

[Drifter]

<SNIP>
TV in particular has almost lost the distinction between news and opinion.

<SNIP>
- Jim

Likewise the printed media. Whatever happened to the days when opinions appeared on "editorial" and "letters to the editor" pages and factual news comprised the bulk of the newspaper?

I've concluded that the primary goal of the media today is to degrade our public servants and public agencies. Granted, they are not all clean; however, I know, after 20 years as an active duty military officer and a similar second career working for or with public agencies, that there are a hundreds of thousands of good people doing great jobs every day. How often are their efforts reported? I get sick of all the bashing of our law enforcement agencies every time I turn on the 6:00 PM news.

One of these days, we'll all wake up and ask "What happened to America"?

Perhaps it's already that day?

[maximus2161]

sad how our media reports "the truth".

[KBCraig]

Sometimes they get it completely wrong even when they're on our side. See Mike Gallagher's column today:

http://townhall.com/Columnists/MikeGall ... e_to_roost

Excerpt:
The concept behind a “castle doctrine� is that a man’s home is his castle and if a bad guy is stupid enough to try and enter a man’s home to do him or his family harm, the man should have the right to blow the intruder into kingdom come (provided the homeowner is licensed to carry).

Oddly enough, Texas didn’t have such a law. In fact, the legal expectation was that someone under attack in their own home had a “duty� to retreat before using deadly force.



Yes, I left a comment.

[Greybeard]

Quote: "Sometimes they get it completely wrong even when they're on our side."

Don'tcha love trying to keep 'em to from confusing the masses any more than what they already are?

[lrb111]

When the media shows obvious bias against firearms - sometimes rising to the level of deliberate falsification (i.e., lies) - we recognize it, since we have knowledge of the subject.

Do you think they're telling the truth about other topics we have little or know first-hand knowledge of?

If you know anything first-hand about an incident reported in the media, you will see inaccuracy and biases.

I wouldn't use the word lies too quickly.

---snip---

When you see phrases like police allege that or witnesses said that, those are shortened version of a statement that was too long to quote or not caught on tape. They can contain mistakes by the original speaker or the reporter or downstream editor.

Actual fabrication does occur. It is a career death penalty when caught in print journalism. TV, unfortunately, has become squishy and tolerates more of it unless it results in lawsuits.

The bottom line (if you've read this far, thanks), is that you have to read and listen skeptically and consider all news reports a quick first approximation of what might actually have happened. That is equally true whether you agree with the gist of the story or not.

- Jim

A little clarification using "alleged" and "so&so said " is legal protection for the reporting news service (paper, tv, radio, etc). Libel and slander are serious concerns, even if a person is later found guilty.
There is also the very real concerns of "tainting the jury pool" with careless or sloppy conjecture on the reporters part.
Both issues have ramifications that reporters do not want to see directed at them.

[HankB]

. . . I wouldn't use the word lies too quickly.

OK, in the interest of not being hasty, let's turn back the clock a little to the early '90s, when the Clinton AWB was being discussed.

NBC News and Tom Brokaw ran a story about the proposed restrictions on semi-automatic firearms, while running a film clip of a machine gun being fired.

They got a ton of letters on the topic - including at least one direct from the NRA - and acknowledged the error, but declined to issue a correction.

And then, knowing full well the deceptive nature of their video . . . they did it again. Repeatedly. Sort of an "up yours" gesture to people who took issue with their coverage.

When they know something is deceptive, and keep doing it, how is that NOT a lie?

And how would you explain NBC's own coverage of exploding GM pickups, in which they doctored a truck with a deliberately-leaky gas cap and a remote control incendiary so they could get film which "proved" the danger of the truck?

More recently, Dan Rather at CBS used forged documents from a dead man in an attempt to influence a Presidential election . . . and even when presented with compelling evidence that the documents were created in a manner that didn't exist at the time the documents were allegedly created, CBS & Rather stonewalled . . . finally making a lame excuse that "The story is true even if the documents we based it on aren't . . . "

SO when I say that the media does lie . . . it's because the media does lie. Not all the time, and often haste and laziness are the source of inaccuracies, but when there's an agenda at work, there's little incentive to check things out closely for information that might conflict with that agenda.

[seamusTX]

A little clarification using "alleged" and "so&so said " is legal protection for the reporting news service (paper, tv, radio, etc). Libel and slander are serious concerns, even if a person is later found guilty.
There is also the very real concerns of "tainting the jury pool" with careless or sloppy conjecture on the reporters part.

Yes, and they usually get this right.

People sometimes make fun of newspapers for using phrases like alleged robber, even when the person being discussed is dead and beyond libel or human justice. That's what their rules call for (the rules are mostly in the Associated Press style book, though some newspapers have their own style books).

- Jim