Shooting at Las Vegas casino

The overarching lesson here is that, with hot-button political issues, there is no such thing as minutia. Cross every t and dot every i, and then do it again, and then once more. Because there will be an army of people trying to discredit you no matter what you report.

 

I would be more willing to accept contempt for tedium as the reason -- though not an excuse -- if the contempt didn't result in the author's story aligning perfectly with their politics and world view.

How long can we just call them "mistakes" when they do this?

Look at the Politico correction yesterday. Why do the mistakes always implicate the Koch brothers or make Donald Trump look bad?

 

It's part of it. Minimally, the worldview is why they don't know about guns in the first place.

But remember: Journalists tend to balk at things like reading 10Ks and balance sheets, too.

Buncha bullshit.

 

And, let's be honest. Reporters used to get away with it.

Before the internet, it wasn't nearly as easy for folks to highlight and share reporters' "mistakes".

 

There also used to be these things called copyeditors who would get your ass on the horn and say, "Are you sure it was an automatic weapon?"

 

Yeah, but who needs them?

 

Sorry if this is a d_b. Incredible job by the officer. An absolutely harrowing scene.

 

Please just stop. The thing many of us have contempt for is you and others trying to shift this argument to a technicality and an attack on the media when the real issue is finding ways to lessen the risk of future mass shootings. The discussion needs to be about stricter gun control and other issues, such as mental health and seeing you try to put the focus on distractions gets tiresome.

 

Fair point, but the other part of that is that we can't allow the minutia to get in the way of the important discussion of the issues. Just because some people want to clutter the discussion with minutia doesn't mean we have to allow that to happen.

 

It's funny (Cam Newton definition) watching everyone have a discussion and then read oop's' posts as someone standing in a corner at the party muttering to himself.

 

It is a site for discussions by journalists. There is a difference.

 

Let's not confuse what journalists say or don't say on a message board or on Twitter with what actually goes into their stories.

And as Dick points out, the concern here isn't necessarily for what appears in a straight news story about an event, but what is expressed later by analysts and opinion havers and policymakers. They're the ones making the case for or against something.

Now having said that, I'd expect stories appearing more than 24 hours after the event to be much more correct than those appearing in the first few hours.

Note, too, that the LVMSD has also changed their story repeatedly as new information comes to light.

So it's an imprecise business necessarily.