Is This How Journalists Are Trained About Firearms?

[sbo80]

what terrifies me more than the lack of knowledge of firearms by reporters? Realizing that the same applies to probably every topic they report on - economic policy, environmental issues, etc. etc. Every time I hear a reporter talk about something significant, I also ask myself - is this the same person that thinks an AR-15 is a machinegun? Their other statements are probably about on par - kind of close but missing something that is fundamental to overall statement.

[superdave50]

Okay. If you think it is irrelevant and/or useless to 'help' journalists by sharing our expertise and giving them access to accurate information, how do you propose we survive the public perceptions created by all the misleading, inaccurate, and agenda-driven narratives?

how do you propose we "help" them? accurate firearm info is not hard to find these days.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

how do you propose we "help" them? accurate firearm info is not hard to find these days.

Nice try. I already suggested getting with journalists and discussing their misperceptions. If, as you say, they are clueless, let's clue them in.

Insofar as "accurate firearm info" being 'easy' to find these days... Are you sure about that? Isn't there a rather substantive debate over what is or is not a valid site on the Internet? Don't many sites, particularly related to firearms, come with a boilerplate 'warning' that the opinions expressed therein are for entertainment purposes and not to be relied on... proceed at your own risk?

In short, if they are going to rely on 'experts' rather than 'research,' maybe we should offer them experts which can't be automatically dismissed as 'shills of the NRA' or the 'gun industry.'

What's your suggestion, beyond them being 'clueless?'

[superdave50]

They seem to be intentionally clueless. If they wanted accurate info they could easily contact a firearm expert.

but, "easily converting your ghost gun to full auto and using the shoulder thing that goes up to fire 100 rounds a second with high capacity clips" is much more betterer for the agenda

[TrappedinCalifornia]

They seem to be intentionally clueless. If they wanted accurate info they could easily contact a firearm expert.

but, "easily converting your ghost gun to full auto and using the shoulder thing that goes up to fire 100 rounds a second with high capacity clips" is much more betterer for the agenda

Which brings us back to...

Okay. If you think it is irrelevant and/or useless to 'help' journalists by sharing our expertise and giving them access to accurate information, how do you propose we survive the public perceptions created by all the misleading, inaccurate, and agenda-driven narratives?

I think you are correct in the main, but not necessarily universally, when it comes to so-called journalists. So, how do we get the camel's nose under the tent beyond 'sympathetic' outfits such as The Federalist or CNSNews or Breitbart? The idea being that, if we don't, the public will continue to be misinformed, using that misinformation to form opinions contrary to our right to keep and bear arms. While simply repealing the 2nd Amendment (get enough misinformed public opinion and it could happen) does not obviate the right, it would make it exceptionally difficult and hazardous to exercise.

[superdave50]

I don't have that answer, but when we figure out how to change their perceptions on firearms, let's also change perceptions on Trump.

[russ69]

what terrifies me more than the lack of knowledge of firearms by reporters? Realizing that the same applies to probably every topic they report on - economic policy, environmental issues, etc. etc. Every time I hear a reporter talk about something significant, I also ask myself - is this the same person that thinks an AR-15 is a machinegun? Their other statements are probably about on par - kind of close but missing something that is fundamental to overall statement.

I reached this conclusion in 1986. I have no trust in ANY reporting from any source. Much like auto salesman, they have a well earned reputation. They have rendered their writing and speech to be a useless commodity.

[Noble Cause]

Mass Media's dishonest "reporting" has been going on for years, to the
point it has become its own internet Meme:





I once researched an author who kept churning out Anti Gun Hit Pieces in
various media. Turns out he was being paid by one of Bloomberg's
Anti Gun organizations for "consulting" services, or some such nonsense,
something he did not disclose within his hit pieces.

Over the years, Calguns members have reached out to the Media to correct
various mistakes and errors, with somewhat mixed results, the most being
no response.

Do not forget that Anti Gun Elites like Bloomberg and Soros funnel MILLIONS
of dollars to various organizations to support their Anti Gun Agenda, from
dishonest "Research" to "news" articles that are basically Propaganda.

Why do you think the publics Trust in Media remains so Low ?...







CNN for example, that bastion of Truth , is down something like
30% from last year, if I remember the article correctly, and of course,
we have the recent Debacle of Left Leaning Newsweek in a Death Spiral.

The Mass Media is to blame for their Own Demise, by abandoning their
journalistic integrity and printing unvetted garbage, or in a lot of cases,
they simply print propaganda to match the politics of their Corporate Owners.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment and Gun Rights, they simply do not
want to print the truth, because it would not support their Anti Gun Agenda.


Noble

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I reached this conclusion in 1986. I have no trust in ANY reporting from any source. Much like auto salesman, they have a well earned reputation. They have rendered their writing and speech to be a useless commodity.

The Mass Media is to blame for their Own Demise, by abandoning their journalistic integrity and printing unvetted garbage, or in a lot of cases, they simply print propaganda to match the politics of their Corporate Owners... When it comes to the 2nd Amendment and Gun Rights, they simply do not want to print the truth, because it would not support their Anti Gun Agenda.

Which brings us back to the question I posed earlier...

How do we get the camel's nose under the tent beyond 'sympathetic' outfits such as The Federalist or CNSNews or Breitbart? The idea being that, if we don't, the public will continue to be misinformed, using that misinformation to form opinions contrary to our right to keep and bear arms. While simply repealing the 2nd Amendment (get enough misinformed public opinion and it could happen) does not obviate the right, it would make it exceptionally difficult and hazardous to exercise.

Government restraint of the (no longer 'objective') press and free speech? (Bearing in mind that in the late 19th Century through portions of the early 20th Century, many small towns used to have two newspapers, one Democrat and one Republican, to provide access to opposing views.)

More free speech and an 'alternative,' albeit, 'Conservative,' set of media outlets given an 'equal' playing field to the more Liberal "mainstream media?" (How would you decide which and how many alternative views to allow and how might market forces dictate their survival vs. Government support for those views?)

Use of Anti-Trust laws to break the hegemony of Liberal spin and messaging?

Is the time ripe, given the public's lack of trust in the media, for some sort of change? If it is, how do we go about it? Or...

Do we simply continue kvetching, say they don't want to listen, and wait for the inevitable course of misinformed public sentiment to play out?

[Noble Cause]

Which brings us back to the question I posed earlier...

How do we get the camel's nose under the tent beyond 'sympathetic' outfits such as The Federalist or CNSNews or Breitbart? The idea being that, if we don't, the public will continue to be misinformed, using that misinformation to form opinions contrary to our right to keep and bear arms. While simply repealing the 2nd Amendment (get enough misinformed public opinion and it could happen) does not obviate the right, it would make it exceptionally difficult and hazardous to exercise.

Government restraint of the (no longer 'objective') press and free speech? (Bearing in mind that in the late 19th Century through portions of the early 20th Century, many small towns used to have two newspapers, one Democrat and one Republican, to provide access to opposing views.)

More free speech and an 'alternative,' albeit, 'Conservative,' set of media outlets given an 'equal' playing field to the more Liberal "mainstream media?" (How would you decide which and how many alternative views to allow and how might market forces dictate their survival vs. Government support for those views?)

Use of Anti-Trust laws to break the hegemony of Liberal spin and messaging?

Is the time ripe, given the public's lack of trust in the media, for some sort of change? If it is, how do we go about it? Or...

Do we simply continue kvetching, say they don't want to listen, and wait for the inevitable course of misinformed public sentiment to play out?

The Change Has Already Happened,
and is growing more influential each day.

Question for you:

What person has a bigger Platform than The Wall Street Journal,
CNN, and MSNBC COMBINED ?

A YouTuber named PewDiePie.

He has 60+ MILLION subscribers.

Alternative media like YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc. has allowed Free Speech
to Flourish, providing a counter balance to the disingenuous Corporate
Media, and is another reason why Trump was elected.

Although now the (Mostly) Left Leaning Tech Giants are trying to frantically
put the Genie back in the bottle using various Anti Free Speech tricks like
shadow banning, demonetization, dishonest trending / ranking, censorship,
and just outright banning people for Wrong Think...

Here is one example of someone countering all the Gun Control Nonsense
being spewed by all the Talking Heads of Corporate Media:

EPIC: Crowder Destroys Gun Control in 54 Seconds!!
Louder With Crowder
95,760 views StevenCrowder Published on Feb 16, 2018
SUBSCRIBE 1.2M
Steven Crowder goes nuclear on the exploitative gun-control advocates
of recent public shooting in under 1-minute:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHS4qRJ8cFI

Calguns is another example of using non traditional Media to supply people
with another viewpoint in the Lefts endless war against the 2nd Amendment.


Noble

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Alternative media like YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc. has allowed Free Speech to Flourish, providing a counter balance to the disingenuous Corporate Media, and is another reason why Trump was elected.

Although now the (Mostly) Left Leaning Tech Giants are trying to frantically
put the Genie back in the bottle using various Anti Free Speech tricks like
shadow banning, demonetization, dishonest trending / ranking, censorship,
and just outright banning people for Wrong Think...

Calguns is another example of using non traditional Media to supply people with another viewpoint in the Lefts endless war against the 2nd Amendment

Okay. I'll buy the 'alternative media' as one method to 'counterbalance' the Mainstream Media. I'll even stipulate that Twitter was a factor in Trump's election; though I'm a bit dubious that his method of use should be held up as a model. It might even help in surviving the public perceptions created by all the misleading, inaccurate, and agenda-driven narratives?

Unfortunately, that only creates a counter-narrative; a narrative which is not available to everyone and maybe not even a significant percentage of the public whose opinions are shaped by what they hear/read in the Mainstream Media.

How would you mitigate the (legitimate?) accusations of the counter-narrative being mostly, Right-Leaning, agenda driven 'propaganda?' In fact, don't we hear that already in many cases; e.g., paid shills for the arms industry manufacturers, NRA backed/sponsored, etc.?

Isn't one of the major criticisms for the process of registering bullet-button "assault weapons" that not everyone has access to the Internet, isn't necessarily tech-savvy, and/or doesn't own the equipment required? Remember, as well, that not everyone listens to 'conservative talk radio' or even have access to all the voices (or even some of them).

So, while alternative media can be a 'good' thing, it's not necessarily a panacea. It certainly isn't on a 'level playing field' with the Mainstream Media - at least not yet - in terms of the audience it reaches. (Subscription numbers on YouTube aren't necessarily indicative of actual followers/listeners.) It's just like FOX News winning in the ratings wars against CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and CNBC. They may have more, but how many viewers cross over and how many exclude FOX from viewing; not because they aren't looking for facts, but because they don't like the format or certain hosts or...?

How do we reach those people with accurate facts to mitigate the narratives that are being foisted upon them?

[russ69]

....Is the time ripe, given the public's lack of trust in the media, for some sort of change? If it is, how do we go about it? Or...

The media continues to lose credibility on a daily basis. That void will eventually be filled by more credible sources. Social media is making an impact as more people get exposed to alternate viewpoints. I think the younger people get it and they will lead the fight.

[GW]

Jack?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Jack?

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or one of the other posts or is saying something I'm missing.

My name isn't Jack if that's what you're asking.

Otherwise, I leave it to someone who understands what you're saying or for you to further elucidate.

[GW]

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or one of the other posts or is saying something I'm missing.

My name isn't Jack if that's what you're asking.

Otherwise, I leave it to someone who understands what you're saying or for you to further elucidate.

Sorry,
Jack Ellis
I was wondering if he would be coming back to comment on the replies to his post but I'm guessing he won't.