Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Wisconsin native. "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."--GKC "Liberalism is the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal" --G K Chesterton "The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Here ya got a point, Dad29 - it borders on comical to listen to these professionally-coiffed "anchors" and "reporters" talk about guns. My wife, who was home from work that Friday afternoon, was watching the coverage while I worked on a client piece. She came into my office and asked me what a "bushwhacker" was - I said I wasn't familiar with the term and asked her where she'd heard it. She said CNN is calling one of the guns a "bushwhacker". I said "they mean bushmaster" and explained to her what it was. Sunday - two days later - one of aged CNN reporterettes was STILL calling it a "bushwhacker" and "informing" us that the shooter was firing 5.56 NATO rounds. Apparently, the reporterette had overheard some conversations and synthesized the info for the audience. I said to the wife "I'm gonna bet a few bucks that the kid had it loaded with .223 Remington rounds" and the wife - a TV reporter for decades - said "if you know this stuff just off the top of your head, why would CNN get this stuff wrong?" I said it's a phenomenon you understand - the reporterette is just filling air-time, and doesn't consider these "details" important enough to confirm. It never ceases to amaze me that on ANY topic the newsies choose to cover, there are knowledgeable people who would help them quickly and easily understand what they are talking about. But, to people who have some knowledge of firearms, the newsies have no idea how much credibility they lose. When they get so much information so wrong - like "bushwhacker" and "NATO rounds" - not even beginning to understand what they're talking about - those people with some knowledge of the category (whether it's firearms, aviation, engineering, or whatever) question the reporter's accuracy on EVERYTHING they report, figuring that if they're that sloppy on that part of the story, they're probably that sloppy on the rest of the elements.
Another ....cough...inaccuracy.... is to describe the .223 as "high-powered."
Relative to a .22LR, yes.
Relative to a .30-06 or even .308 (approximately the AK round), nope. Not even close.
Twain's 'All I know is what I read in the newspaper' remark was sarcastic, not expository. He was right then, and nothing's changed.
First rule of journalism in the Obama era. When in doubt, or if you can claim you were in doubt, round up when reporting anything to do with caliber.
Anony above: Obama has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's sloppy "jernalizm", and it's been growing since 2008, when print and electronic media's advertising base of car dealers, realtors, and others decamped for Craigslist and similar online venues. It's more related to the economy and the media's inability to make debt service, which resulted in massive layoffs, than it is to ANY political administration.
Tim, it seems to me that print journo is in worse shape revenue-wise than electronic.
But print has managed to keep some of its graybeards (where else can they go?) thus, SOME modicum of smarts on a number of topix.
Electronic--despite retaining ad revs--cannot seem to hire street-smarts. They prefer the face/voice and "edyumakayshun" credentialism.
Post a Comment