NAVSEA Shooter - DC

[Exterous]

Maybe no AR-15 (or any rifle for that matter) involved in the shooting?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/?hpt=hp_t1

Good grief - if that is true then my respect for the the reporting abilities of the media is going down another notch. They had time to create virtual simulations of him standing at a railing shooting down into a cafeteria with an assault rifle but not enough time to verify the news they were reporting?

Edit: It seems they got the report from a 'law enforcement officer' so maybe the blame isn't all on them (Tough to tell without knowing the background behind the source)

 

[woolfe9998]

Good grief - if that is true then my respect for the the reporting abilities of the media is going down another notch. They had time to create virtual simulations of him standing at a railing shooting down into a cafeteria with an assault rifle but not enough time to verify the news they were reporting?

For crying out loud. Whatever was reported by the media, and it was pretty much all the media including Foxnews, was supplied by law enforcement.

Getting details wrong in a breaking crime story is the rule. For example, anyone remember with Sandy Hook that Adam Lanza was initially thought to be his brother, and that for a time the media reported that Lanza's mother had worked as a teacher at the elementary school? ANd in this case, it was 2 shooters then 3 shooters, now it's 1 shooter. Apparently it's only when they get the gun wrong that it's a conspiracy.

 

[OCGuy]

For crying out loud. Whatever was reported by the media, and it was pretty much all the media including Foxnews, was supplied by law enforcement.

Getting details wrong in a breaking crime story is the rule. For example, anyone remember with Sandy Hook that Adam Lanza was initially thought to be his brother, and that for a time the media reported that Lanza's mother had worked as a teacher at the elementary school? ANd in this case, it was 2 shooters then 3 shooters, now it's 1 shooter. Apparently it's only when they get the gun wrong that it's a conspiracy.

Oh they get "facts" wrong all the time, so its OK. You are an idiot.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Oh they get "facts" wrong all the time, so its OK. You are an idiot.

What he's saying is it's not like it's a deliberate attempt to deceive. It is relaying the information law enforcement is providing in essentially real time. That dually serves as confirmation of the information at that moment in time.

Now if they are reporting in a couple weeks that it is an AR-15 then the complaint would be valid.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh they get "facts" wrong all the time, so its OK. You are an idiot.

No, you're a moron. The news business works off sources. They are only as good as the sources supplying their information. In a breaking story, it is very common for information to be garbled, particularly in the first few hours. Expecting the media to get every detail correct in a breaking story about a crisis situation is absurd. In order to be assured of getting everything right, they'd have to not report on the event until at least several hours have gone by. You don't survive in the news business with that kind of caution, not when you have competition.

And yes, it is "OK." I expect incorrect information in early stages of a breaking story. It's generally fixed within hours. So what? Why would you even care unless you're trying to allege some kind of political motive, but that is already debunked by the fact that Foxnews reported the exact same thing. Clearly because they were working off the same sources.

 

[woolfe9998]

What he's saying is it's not like it's a deliberate attempt to deceive. It is relaying the information law enforcement is providing in essentially real time. That dually serves as confirmation of the information at that moment in time.

Now if they are reporting in a couple weeks that it is an AR-15 then the complaint would be valid.

Yes, I'm saying that it wasn't an intent to deceive, and I'm also saying it wasn't negligent either. It isn't negligent to report what law enforcement sources are saying in a breaking story. This isn't like an investigative piece where there is time to prepare the article and generally at least 2 independent sources are sought for each fact. There is no time to do that with a breaking story. It's standard to report what you're told and correct any inaccuracies as new information comes in. There simply isn't any other way to do it.

 

[xBiffx]

Hard to believe it wasn't an attempt to deceive. Especially when its proven time and time again that the media has an agenda, especially when it comes to guns. A mistake one or twice is one thing but when they repeatedly report the wrong information, to think its not intentional is pretty insane.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

The media should be doing extra due diligence in this age of information especially in reporting around these mass shootings. Its evident they don't care.

 

[woolfe9998]

Hard to believe it wasn't an attempt to deceive. Especially when its proven time and time again that the media has an agenda, especially when it comes to guns. A mistake one or twice is one thing but when they repeatedly report the wrong information, to think its not intentional is pretty insane.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

And yet again, another conservative has made this comment while failing to acknowledge that Foxnews, clearly working off the same sources as every other news outlet, also reported this as an AR15. Please explain where Foxnews has the anti-gun bias you claim the rest of the news media has.

 

[Incorruptible]

I think the blame is best laid at Clinton. He is the one that disarmed everybody on military bases.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/

The media doesn't care and they just want to use this shooting to blame guns and call for more idiotic gun control measures.

 

[xBiffx]

And yet again, another conservative has made this comment while failing to acknowledge that Foxnews, clearly working off the same sources as every other news outlet, also reported this as an AR15. Please explain where Foxnews has the anti-gun bias you claim the rest of the news media has.

Knew it wouldn't take long for someone to ASSume.

Please explain where I said anything about anti-gun, specifically. The media, as a whole, has an agenda. They are there to sell news, not convey accuracy in their reporting.

Now, certainly, there seems to be an anti gun agenda in a lot of the media, I don't think Fox is immune seeing as they re-report a lot of their content. Half of the time its sourced from AP and not directly from Fox News. What you do get at Fox News is a whole different kind of commentary but their "news" is still suspect.

 

[spidey07]

And yet again, another conservative has made this comment while failing to acknowledge that Foxnews, clearly working off the same sources as every other news outlet, also reported this as an AR15. Please explain where Foxnews has the anti-gun bias you claim the rest of the news media has.

In their reporting of this story the anti-gun bias was shown. Fox also reported it was an AR15 that shot 3 round bursts automatically. So it looks like most of them got it all wrong.

They speculated about an AR15, ran with it, ran with the misinformation campaign and flat out lies and kept repeating them.

Look at the stories today on CNN, etc. They are STILL desperately inserting AR15 into the story even after the facts are known. That's the propaganda, that's the extremely clear agenda. If you can't see it it means you're part of the agenda and also part of the problem.

Stop defending the lies and misinformation right fucking now!

 

[woolfe9998]

In their reporting of this story the anti-gun bias was shown. Fox also reported it was an AR15 that shot 3 round bursts automatically. So it looks like most of them got it all wrong.

They speculated about an AR15, ran with it, ran with the misinformation campaign and flat out lies and kept repeating them.

Look at the stories today on CNN, etc. They are STILL desperately inserting AR15 into the story even after the facts are known. That's the propaganda, that's the extremely clear agenda. If you can't see it it means you're part of the agenda.

Stop defending the lies and misinformation right fucking now!

So you're saying that Foxnews has an anti-gun bias now? Truly hilarious.

This information came from the police. We know this because 1) this type of information generally comes from law enforcement, 2) the articles say it came from law enforcement, and 3) a notably right wing media outlet who was clearly accessing the same law enforcement sources also reported it the same way. Furthermore, we know that unintentional inaccuracies are extremely common in breaking stories. This wasn't the only inaccuracy even in this story alone. Hence, there is no reason to assume this particular inaccuracy was intentional. It was no different than the 3 gunmen inaccuracy. It all came from law enforcement sources.

Case closed.

 

[spidey07]

So you're saying that Foxnews has an anti-gun bias now? Truly hilarious.

This information came from the police. We know this because 1) this type of information generally comes from law enforcement, 2) the articles say it came from law enforcement, and 3) a notably right wing media outlet who was clearly accessing the same law enforcement sources also reported it the same way. Furthermore, we know that unintentional inaccuracies are extremely common in breaking stories. This wasn't the only inaccuracy even in this story alone. Hence, there is no reason to assume this particular error was intentional.

Case closed.

So why is the media still harping about AR15 when a rifle had nothing to do with this shooting? Why are the lies still being told?

They were reporting AR15 before they ever talked to police, it came out before the media knew anything. All part of the misinformation and lies, seems you gobble them right up. Going so far as defending the behavior.

You're part of the problem and agenda, therefore anything you say is false and not to be believed. You are a liar with a severe mental illness - liberalism.

 

[woolfe9998]

So why is the media still harping about AR15 when a rifle had nothing to do with this shooting? Why are the lies still being told?

They were reporting AR15 before they ever talked to police, it came out before the media knew anything. All part of the misinformation and lies, seems you gobble them right up.

Why did Foxnews report it the same way?

 

[yllus]

Our media is fucked. It went from 3 dudes to 3 black dudes to 2 black dudes with 1 black dude with a M16 to a AR15 to a shotgun and two pistols.

Fuck the "reporting" in this country.

I work for a pretty large media company (in Canada), and we have a couple of brands who double and triple check things before they put it on the Web or on the air. They agonize over this stuff and know that for every minute they wait, they're losing money. They'll go on the air with their story a half an hour late and then still get the facts wrong because the spokesperson cop is forwarding information from a bunch of other cops and witnesses on the scene who don't know an AR-15 from a water gun.

It's a "garbage in, garbage out" situation at the best of times even before you get to reporting bias or further miscommunication. You could argue that the reporter on the scene should double-check before saying anything, but what are they realistically going to do, demand to see each murder weapon with their own eyes? They're working with the best information they've got.

 

[woolfe9998]

I work for a pretty large media company (in Canada), and we have a couple of brands who double and triple check things before they put it on the Web or on the air. They agonize over this stuff and know that for every minute they wait, they're losing money. They'll go on the air with their story a half an hour late and then still get the facts wrong because the spokesperson cop is forwarding information from a bunch of other cops and witnesses on the scene who don't know an AR-15 from a water gun.

It's a "garbage in, garbage out" situation at the best of times even before you get to reporting bias or further miscommunication. You could argue that the reporter on the scene should double-check before saying anything, but what are they realistically going to do, demand to see each murder weapon with their own eyes? They're working with the best information they've got.

It amazes me that people either do not understand this or claim to not understand it. It's like debating children rather than mature adults who actually understand something about the world they live in.

 

[woolfe9998]

Knew it wouldn't take long for someone to ASSume.

Please explain where I said anything about anti-gun, specifically. The media, as a whole, has an agenda. They are there to sell news, not convey accuracy in their reporting.

Now, certainly, there seems to be an anti gun agenda in a lot of the media, I don't think Fox is immune seeing as they re-report a lot of their content. Half of the time its sourced from AP and not directly from Fox News. What you do get at Fox News is a whole different kind of commentary but their "news" is still suspect.

Their "news" is definitely suspect, but not for having a left wing or anti-gun bias.

This story wasn't sourced from a news wire. It's a Fox article. As a national news organization, they were at the same police press conferences, and accessing the same law enforcement sources, as the rest of the media. The point source of this inaccuracy was law enforcement.

Of course the media has a bias toward sensationalism. I would never claim differently. However, in this case it's pretty clear they were just passing on what they were told.

 

[dank69]

Knew it wouldn't take long for someone to ASSume.

Please explain where I said anything about anti-gun, specifically. The media, as a whole, has an agenda. They are there to sell news, not convey accuracy in their reporting.

Now, certainly, there seems to be an anti gun agenda in a lot of the media, I don't think Fox is immune seeing as they re-report a lot of their content. Half of the time its sourced from AP and not directly from Fox News. What you do get at Fox News is a whole different kind of commentary but their "news" is still suspect.

Right here:

Hard to believe it wasn't an attempt to deceive. Especially when its proven time and time again that the media has an agenda, especially when it comes to guns. A mistake one or twice is one thing but when they repeatedly report the wrong information, to think its not intentional is pretty insane.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

The media should be doing extra due diligence in this age of information especially in reporting around these mass shootings. Its evident they don't care.

I'm sure you didn't mean anti-gun there though.

 

[dank69]

The media doesn't care and they just want to use this shooting to blame guns and call for more idiotic gun control measures.

You already replied to that post in 171, botface.

 

[spidey07]

Too soon, or LULZ?

 

[bshole]

I can just about guarantee the white house is going to come out and say "not terrorism, workplace violence"

Just watch. "We have no idea what happened, but nope...not terrorism!"

So you think it WAS terrorism?!!! Jesus dude, the guy was a psycho ex-employee. If this doesn't fit the definition of workplace violence, what does?

 

[Tom]

Hard to believe it wasn't an attempt to deceive. Especially when its proven time and time again that the media has an agenda, especially when it comes to guns. A mistake one or twice is one thing but when they repeatedly report the wrong information, to think its not intentional is pretty insane.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

The media should be doing extra due diligence in this age of information especially in reporting around these mass shootings. Its evident they don't care.

See its your kind of post which is why I made a big deal about the "ass" thing earlier.

This incident doesn't prove the media has an agenda and neither did the other incidents.

Quite the opposite, your post shows that YOU have an agenda.

 

[dank69]

Too soon, or LULZ?

Is it too soon for us to laugh at you because you assumed this was muslim terrorism? Rick Perry will be your next President. How does it feel to continually prove you know less than even the worst phantom liberal in your head?

 

[xBiffx]

Right here:
I'm sure you didn't mean anti-gun there though.

If I meant anti-gun, I would have said it.

They love to use hot button issues when trying to get people to watch their news as opposed to anyone else. The gun issue is a sweet spot for this agenda. Its not about anti gun, or pro gun, its just talking about anything dealing with guns in general. They do it because they know it gets people to watch. Anti gun or pro gun people alike flock to these kinds of stories.

 

[xBiffx]

See its your kind of post which is why I made a big deal about the "ass" thing earlier.

This incident doesn't prove the media has an agenda and neither did the other incidents.

Quite the opposite, your post shows that YOU have an agenda.

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.