NAVSEA Shooter - DC

[woolfe9998]

Its surely does prove they have an agenda. They prefer throwing out one liners regardless of their truth of weather they have been verifies simply to get people to tune in. If that's not an agenda, I don't know what is.

They love using guns in this regard because they know its a topic that stirs people up and gets them watching. Same goes for a lot of other hot button issues. But seeing is how this thread is about a shooting, my comments were directed at specifically that issue.

My only agenda here is to point out that news stations are in the business of selling news, or more to the point advertising around that news. Their purpose is to get you to tune in, if they don't get you to tune in then they'll eventually cease to exist. They care less about the accuracy of reporting and more about viewership.

Your comments about the media bias toward sensationalism are generally correct. However, they aren't relevant to the specific issue being raised in this thread, which is the inaccuracy of the AR15 being a weapon used by this particular perp. CNN published an article, linked above, explicitly stating that the initial claim it was an AR15 was probably not accurate.

The article also explains that it came from law enforcement, and also explains where law enforcement got it from. Apparently the perp had rented an AR15 days before. The police initially did not know he had returned the AR15 before the shooting. It was a reasonable assumption on the part of the police here that when a mass murderer rents a gun days before, that he used the gun in the shooting. It turned out to be an incorrect assumption here. Nonetheless, it was an assumption made by the police, which was then passed on to the press. This detail was going to be in every article about this incident, with or without sensationalism.

 

[dank69]

Its surely does prove they have an agenda. They prefer throwing out one liners regardless of their truth of weather they have been verifies simply to get people to tune in. If that's not an agenda, I don't know what is.

They love using guns in this regard because they know its a topic that stirs people up and gets them watching. Same goes for a lot of other hot button issues. But seeing is how this thread is about a shooting, my comments were directed at specifically that issue.

My only agenda here is to point out that news stations are in the business of selling news, or more to the point advertising around that news. Their purpose is to get you to tune in, if they don't get you to tune in then they'll eventually cease to exist. They care less about the accuracy of reporting and more about viewership.

So is your theory that more people watch if it is reported that the suspect used an AR-15 as opposed to a shotgun? Are the law enforcement agencies reporting the details to the media a part of the agenda to get people glued to their TV sets as well?

 

[TerryMathews]

So is your theory that more people watch if it is reported that the suspect used an AR-15 as opposed to a shotgun? Are the law enforcement agencies reporting the details to the media a part of the agenda to get people glued to their TV sets as well?

Yes. "Shotgun" isn't the same attention getter assault weapon or AR-15 is, even though it's far more effective in close quarters.

 

[dank69]

Yes. "Shotgun" isn't the same attention getter assault weapon or AR-15 is, even though it's far more effective in close quarters.

I wasn't asking you. I already know you're crazy.

 

[xBiffx]

So is your theory that more people watch if it is reported that the suspect used an AR-15 as opposed to a shotgun? Are the law enforcement agencies reporting the details to the media a part of the agenda to get people glued to their TV sets as well?

Absolutely. The AR-15 is incorrectly being used as a catchphrase. Its my opinion that had the more accurate reporting of only a shotgun been done in the first place, less media attention would have been drawn.

So the media should take anyone at their word and not verify the information independently? Is that your stance? Is law enforcement somehow infallible?

 

[dank69]

Absolutely. The AR-15 is incorrectly being used as a catchphrase. Its my opinion that had the more accurate reporting of only a shotgun been done in the first place, less media attention would have been drawn.

So the media should take anyone at their word and not verify the information independently? Is that your stance? Is law enforcement somehow infallible?

Hold on there hoss, I just want to be absolutely clear first. So you think the minute a reporter says the suspect is using a shotgun while reporting on an in-progress mass shooting, people are going to tune out, whereas if he just utters the magic AR-15 word, they will not?

 

[woolfe9998]

Absolutely. The AR-15 is incorrectly being used as a catchphrase. Its my opinion that had the more accurate reporting of only a shotgun been done in the first place, less media attention would have been drawn.

So the media should take anyone at their word and not verify the information independently? Is that your stance? Is law enforcement somehow infallible?

The will do what is always done with breaking stories. They pass on what they're told by law enforcement. They may check it for accuracy but more often than not law enforcement is the only source and there are no other independent sources at the initial stage. They then state "law enforcement officials say" meaning that they aren't being inaccurate even if the information turns out to be wrong. Then if/when better info comes out, they correct.

There may be an argument for more caution here, in a perfect world, but in the real world of TV and print journalism, it's all about who is first to press. Their competition isn't going to fail to report, or report with a lot of blanks and sketchy indefinites. With media as a business the pressure always goes that way - print first and correct later if needed.

 

[xBiffx]

Your comments about the media bias toward sensationalism are generally correct. However, they aren't relevant to the specific issue being raised in this thread, which is the inaccuracy of the AR15 being a weapon used by this particular perp. CNN published an article, linked above, explicitly stating that the initial claim it was an AR15 was probably not accurate.

The article also explains that it came from law enforcement, and also explains where law enforcement got it from. Apparently the perp had rented an AR15 days before. The police initially did not know he had returned the AR15 before the shooting. It was a reasonable assumption on the part of the police here that when a mass murderer rents a gun days before, that he used the gun in the shooting. It turned out to be an incorrect assumption here. Nonetheless, it was an assumption made by the police, which was then passed on to the press. This detail was going to be in every article about this incident, with or without sensationalism.

Of course CNN and other news sources are going to start publishing correct information now. They have to save face. Of course sheep like yourself are going to claim that it was law enforcement's information and they were the problem. That is not the media's fault because they were fed wrong information. Is it not the job of the media to verify and ascertain that the information they are putting out has been independently correlated? Do they always run with a single source and not check that the source didn't make an error?

You even used the word assumption. The media should not be in the business of running with assumption. You and I can assume. Their job is to convey accurately sourced information. They ran with incorrect data without verifying it. All it took was time to do so. Again, they care less about accuracy and more about beating the next guy to the newsline. Its all about viewership, nothing else.

 

[Tom]

Absolutely. The AR-15 is incorrectly being used as a catchphrase. Its my opinion that had the more accurate reporting of only a shotgun been done in the first place, less media attention would have been drawn.

So the media should take anyone at their word and not verify the information independently? Is that your stance? Is law enforcement somehow infallible?

What they should do is what they did. Report what law enforcement, or witnesses, are telling them and say that is their source.

And when they get more information, report that. Which they also did.

 

[irishScott]

So is your theory that more people watch if it is reported that the suspect used an AR-15 as opposed to a shotgun? Are the law enforcement agencies reporting the details to the media a part of the agenda to get people glued to their TV sets as well?

I think that particular theory is pretty well proven at this point. Right now the gun debate is 49% black rifles, 49% background checks, 2% everything else. No one really cares about a pump shotgun (although every AWB wants to limit them to 5 rounds instead of 8 for some reason).

I don't know if law enforcement is intentionally creating media sensationalism, but if we're talking an officer with anti-gun sentiments then that certainly could be the case.


Regardless, in terms of the gun control debate there aren't any real arguments here. He passed through military security checkpoints and had a security clearance that he clearly shouldn't have had (based on information easily found by the media, but not by the DoD). No gun control proposal that we've heard to date that has any chance of passing would have plausibly prevented this.

 

[xBiffx]

Hold on there hoss, I just want to be absolutely clear first. So you think the minute a reporter says the suspect is using a shotgun while reporting on an in-progress mass shooting, people are going to tune out, whereas if he just utters the magic AR-15 word, they will not?

Where did I say that? Never said people are going to tune out. I did say that more people are going to tune in if you approach every hot button issue in the news by using a catchphrase intended to turn heads towards your programming.

 

[xBiffx]

What they should do is what they did. Report what law enforcement, or witnesses, are telling them and say that is their source.

And when they get more information, report that. Which they also did.

No what they should do is WAIT. Wait until they are able to verify this information for themselves. Of course that means not being first to print and sacrificing viewership and therefore a few advertising dollars. They don't want to have that happen.

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course CNN and other news sources are going to start publishing correct information now. They have to save face. Of course sheep like yourself are going to claim that it was law enforcement's information and they were the problem. That is not the media's fault because they were fed wrong information. Is it not the job of the media to verify and ascertain that the information they are putting out has been independently correlated? Do they always run with a single source and not check that the source didn't make an error?

A rational mind would observe that inaccuracies in early reporting of breaking stories are extremely common, but far less common in investigative pieces which are not about events unfolding in real time. The same rational mind would then consider the differences between those two scenarios in an attempt to understand why these differences produce varying levels of accuracy. I'm also pretty sure that same rational mind wouldn't conclude that the media suddenly becomes incompetent and irresponsible with a breaking story while their competence appears to be much higher in other situations. It seems rather obvious that when covering an event in real time, there is a paucity of additional available sources to check your source against and very little time to do it in any event.

You even used the word assumption. The media should not be in the business of running with assumption. You and I can assume. Their job is to convey accurately sourced information. They ran with incorrect data without verifying it. All it took was time to do so. Again, they care less about accuracy and more about beating the next guy to the newsline. Its all about viewership, nothing else.

Like I said, in a perfect world, we'd get the same conscientious fact checking for every story, be it breaking in real time or not. In the real world of media as business, people want information about breaking stories right now. Media entities will simply not survive by being as cautious about real time events as you expect them to be. I know you want them to be that way, but it just isn't going to happen unless all the news media suddenly becomes non-profit and is operating entirely as a public trust instead of as a business.

 

[xBiffx]

A rational mind would observe that inaccuracies in early reporting of breaking stories are extremely common, but far less common in investigative pieces which are not about events unfolding in real time. The same rational mind would then consider the differences between those two scenarios in an attempt to understand why these differences produce varying levels of accuracy. I'm also pretty sure that same rational mind wouldn't conclude that the media suddenly becomes incompetent and irresponsible with a breaking story while their competence appears to be much higher in other situations. It seems rather obvious that when covering an event in real time, there is a paucity of additional available sources to check your source against and very little time to do it in any event.

A sheep expects to be lied to. A rational person expects that the media does its job and reports on what's happening and not on what's not happening. Anymore we have to question our media as much as anything else. Sad state when they used to be a watchdog for the people.

 

[woolfe9998]

A sheep expects to be lied to. A rational person expects that the media does its job and reports on what's happening, and not on what's not happening.

Where does "lying" even come into this discussion? What are you claiming was a "lie" here?

A rational person understands the world he lives in and puts the behavior of the media in a real world context. Measuring the behavior of any kind of institution against ideals is well and good but it's going to leave you quite frustrated. If you really understand why they do what they do, then you realize it is pointless to expect any different.

I too wouldn't mind waiting a little longer for more accurate information, but it's not going to happen in a competitive business. When I read breaking stories, I take everything with a grain of salt, particularly the earliest coverage. Understand the media as a business and adjust your expectations accordingly. You seem to be suggesting that I'm some kind of apologist but I'm just being a realist. You OTOH strike me as principled but rather naive.

 

[Tom]

No what they should do is WAIT. Wait until they are able to verify this information for themselves. Of course that means not being first to print and sacrificing viewership and therefore a few advertising dollars. They don't want to have that happen.

So what's your "confirmed" source that an Ar-15 wasn't used ?

For all your bitching, the truth is your problem is you didn't like what they were saying, not whether what they were saying was right or not.

As soon as you found ANY report that says what you want to believe, you jump on it as its now 'known'.

 

[TerryMathews]

So what's your "confirmed" source that an Ar-15 wasn't used ?

For all your bitching, the truth is your problem is you didn't like what they were saying, not whether what they were saying was right or not.

As soon as you found ANY report that says what you want to believe, you jump on it as its now 'known'.

The FBI. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...=mqlvv8z2VjQpGd7NcKdPvw&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aWc

 

[Gunslinger08]

NYT called the Remington 870 a "law-enforcement-style shotgun". Will legislators now try to ban shotguns with a magazine that can hold over 2 rounds?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/u...man-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?_r=0

Reading the description of a shotgun in that article makes me cringe.

 

[spidey07]

The media went after ar15 not from police as the left keeps lying about.

They jumped on it early on after a witness described being shot at with a rifle. They then, right on cue and purposefully lying said its a ar15. Complete with a computer graphic of an m16 with a grenade launcher attached. if you don't think that's being done on purpose you're blind or delusional.

Keep the message and agenda at all costs. It's sickening. Even more so those defending it. Notice they are all far left libtards.

 

[woolfe9998]

So what's your "confirmed" source that an Ar-15 wasn't used ?

For all your bitching, the truth is your problem is you didn't like what they were saying, not whether what they were saying was right or not.

As soon as you found ANY report that says what you want to believe, you jump on it as its now 'known'.

Numerous sources now confirm it was not an AR15, including the NYT piece linked by joshsquall above.

 

[yllus]

The media went after ar15 not from police as the left keeps lying about.

They jumped on it early on after a witness described being shot at with a rifle. They then, right on cue and purposefully lying said its a ar15. Complete with a computer graphic of an m16 with a grenade launcher attached. if you don't think that's being done on purpose you're blind or delusional.

I think it's worth kicking around the idea that the media generally chooses the more sensational details over the boring ones; if it is the case, maybe it's done consciously, and maybe they don't know they're doing it. I could see this being the case, though.

 

[dank69]

Where did I say that? Never said people are going to tune out. I did say that more people are going to tune in if you approach every hot button issue in the news by using a catchphrase intended to turn heads towards your programming.

Okay, so people don't tune out when they hear "shotgun" as opposed to "AR-15." You are conceding this point then?

So your theory is that, perhaps through word of mouth, people hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using a shotgun" and they don't care at all, but if they hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using an AR-15" they drop what they are doing to find out more? Do I have that right now?

 

[yllus]

No what they should do is WAIT. Wait until they are able to verify this information for themselves. Of course that means not being first to print and sacrificing viewership and therefore a few advertising dollars. They don't want to have that happen.

Ultimately like every other free market enterprise, the media respond to incentives and risks. As a society, we've instructed them that their incentive to be first to air greatly outweighs the risk of getting one of the facts wrong.

Until we demand better accuracy and make them pay for it by taking our dollars elsewhere (to more accurate outlets?) nothing will change.

 

[Gunslinger08]

The media went after ar15 not from police as the left keeps lying about.

They jumped on it early on after a witness described being shot at with a rifle. They then, right on cue and purposefully lying said its a ar15. Complete with a computer graphic of an m16 with a grenade launcher attached. if you don't think that's being done on purpose you're blind or delusional.

Keep the message and agenda at all costs. It's sickening. Even more so those defending it. Notice they are all far left libtards.

I think it's most likely an abundance of ignorance that I would consider negligent. A vast majority of the public (and media) don't know anything about guns. They don't even know the difference between gun and action types. You say semi-automatic and they're thinking a military rifle that shoots bullets with your finger held down until the magazine is empty. You say shotgun and they think sawed off streetsweeper. These people don't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. They don't know the difference between a revolver and a semi-auto pistol. They don't know the difference between enjoying something and being obsessed with it. They don't understand why people would own guns for reasons other than murder or hunting.

So yes, the media is ignorant - they're just regular people who get put on TV. They don't have any special training. They report what they're told to report and they make their best guess. Where the negligence comes in is that everyone knows they're ignorant about guns, but don't do anything to educate themselves. The media have a pretty serious duty to understand the things they're reporting on, as the general public mostly takes them at face value. Their bosses and they themselves haven't deemed it important enough to educate journalists, so we get this type of shit. This is unacceptable.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Other than the actual events of this incident, what disturbs me the most is the fact this this man was somehow legally able to obtain a shotgun. History of gun abuses, history of mental illness and yet none of that prevented him from owning that shotgun.

At what point should someone not be able to buy a gun or, conversely, lose the right to ones they already possess? When does the safety of others trump the right to bear rms?