Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: 230RN on February 28, 2011, 01:57:23 PM

Title: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: 230RN on February 28, 2011, 01:57:23 PM
OK, so I'm trying to reduce my 100 lbs or so of old American Rifleman magazines to 99 lbs or less.

So I'm going through them, using post-it notes to flag articles I want to cut and keep.  So I'm in the November 2007 issue and I find this on page 34, in the "Second Shots" section, where they review tidbits from past issues:

Quote
FACTS AND FIRE ARMS

The old sergeant's remarks regarding the ignorance displayed by many newspaper reporters when writing about fire arms are very truthful.  It is vastly amusing to read the reports that appear in the daily press, in which it is made to appear that 12 gauge shot cartridges are useful in rifles, that shotguns are loaded with the deadly .303, and where the trigger snapped, when the hammer is meant, besides many other lamentable errors.  Another startling and amusing "break" often occurs in reporting a fire in a hardware store or gun shop.  Here the scribe is in his glory when he writes of the bullets flying in all directions, "endangering the lives of the firemen and spectators."  The enterprising journalist ought to know that if he were to throw a handful of rifle cartridges in the fire, the brass cases would blow off, being lighter than the bullet.  Of course, in the event of a cartridge being backed up against a solid obstruction, the bullet would be thrown off with a great deal of velocity, but not sufficient to endanger the lives of the firemen and spectators.
   --B. Kelly

This appeared 100 years before, in the November 1907 issue!

Makes you wonder about what they teach in Journalism classes about fact-checking --even today.

Jes' fer grins.

Terry, 230RN

{I'm sure the NRA editorial staff will not mind this quote.  I mean, what are they going to do, come out and kill me to terminate my life membership?}
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: RevDisk on February 28, 2011, 02:10:37 PM
{I'm sure the NRA editorial staff will not mind this quote.  I mean, what are they going to do, come out and kill me to terminate my life membership?}

Sorta.  They need to cut off your head with a sword, then get struck by lightning and Queen starts playing.  Then the life membership reverts back to the NRA with awesome 80s special effects.
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: makattak on February 28, 2011, 02:18:38 PM
Sorta.  They need to cut off your head with a sword, then get struck by lightning and Queen starts playing.  Then the life membership reverts back to the NRA with awesome 80s special effects.

I don't know whether to thank you or be annoyed with you for getting "Princes of the Universe" stuck in my head.

I'll make that decision based on how long it stays stuck there...
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: Hawkmoon on February 28, 2011, 03:45:55 PM
At the last SHOT Show in Orlando, two years ago, the NSSF was handing out a guide to writers for how to avoid common mistakes when writing about firearms and shooting. Looks like they have a link to it on-line:
http://www.nssf.org/Newsroom/writers/guide/index.cfm

This should be required reading for any (alleged) journalist who will ever write anything pertaining to guns and/or shooting
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: Devonai on February 28, 2011, 03:46:09 PM
Sorta.  They need to cut off your head with a sword, then get struck by lightning and Queen starts playing.  Then the life membership reverts back to the NRA with awesome 80s special effects.

If they can, that is.  Clancy Brown underestimated Christopher Lambert, and he ended up stuck in an underground lab entering numbers into a computer for the rest of his life!
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: roo_ster on February 28, 2011, 03:56:23 PM
Sorta.  They need to cut off your head with a sword, then get struck by lightning and Queen starts playing.  Then the life membership reverts back to the NRA with awesome 80s special effects.


There can be only one!
There can be only two!
There can be only three!
There can be only a finite number!

Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: roo_ster on February 28, 2011, 03:57:31 PM
If they can, that is.  Clancy Brown underestimated Christopher Lambert, and he ended up stuck in an underground lab entering numbers into a computer for the rest of his life!

Yeah, but it beats being in juvie hanging out with Sean Penn.
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: Devonai on February 28, 2011, 05:38:14 PM
Yeah, but does that beat making life Hell for Tim Robbins at Shawshank Prison?
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: MechAg94 on February 28, 2011, 05:43:22 PM
I seem to recall an interview with the guy who put together the Gun-Facts publication and he said at one time they sent copies to every journalist in San Francisco and he said the reporting improved in his opinion because the journalists had a handy source of info to reference.  They don't shoot or know anyone who does so they have no one to ask about such things.
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: RoadKingLarry on March 01, 2011, 06:56:25 AM
Yeah, but it beats being in juvie hanging out with Sean Penn.

So does getting your head cut off.
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: RevDisk on March 01, 2011, 09:53:15 AM
I seem to recall an interview with the guy who put together the Gun-Facts publication and he said at one time they sent copies to every journalist in San Francisco and he said the reporting improved in his opinion because the journalists had a handy source of info to reference.  They don't shoot or know anyone who does so they have no one to ask about such things.

Maybe we could make our own publication, children's book style, and email it to as many reporters as possible.   
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: makattak on March 01, 2011, 10:04:17 AM
Maybe we could make our own publication, children's book style, and email it to as many reporters as possible.   

Actually, I'm quite opposed to that. The ignorance of the anti-gun people is what keeps them banning cosmetic features.

I prefer to keep them ignorant. Stupid bans >>>>> harmful bans.
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: CNYCacher on March 01, 2011, 10:13:34 AM
One of my former (did I tell you guys I quit the newspaper job effective last Friday?) co-workers described a crew-served machine gun as "artillery" in a recent article about a local hero serving in a-stan.

They just don't know any better.
Title: Re: Journalistic fact-checking
Post by: 230RN on March 02, 2011, 07:14:16 AM
Hm.  I wonder if they were using it colloquially.  I sometimes refer to my .45 as "The Artillery."