Ignorant About Firearms

You gotta love it when a story about guns is illustrated with a picture of an air gun.

It pretty much discredits any authority that the author thought he had. 

1. They better watch where they point that thing.  They could put someone’s eye out.

   Posted by Jed on August 29, 2007 at 2108 hrs




2. Do we know that the author selected the photo?  Besides, it’s an illustration, not a sample for inspection used to make some point or other, isn’t it?

   Posted by scott on August 29, 2007 at 2118 hrs




3. I seriously doubt that the author had anything to do with the selection of illustration.  But that doesn’t dilute the point that the illustration neuters anything the author wanted to say. 

   I used to have one of those pellet guns.  It was weak compared to my other one (with which my brother popped me in the ass from 100 yards).

   Posted by Owen on August 29, 2007 at 2124 hrs




4. the illustration neuters anything the author wanted to say.

   If you’re a pedantic nit-picker.  C’mon.  This is exhibit A on why the guy is wrong about whatever he’s saying?  Please.

   Posted by scott on August 29, 2007 at 2140 hrs




5. Usually, when you’re trying to make a point about something, and you want to be taken seriously, it’s a good idea to make sure you have all the right information, including pictures. 

   And Scott, my guess is that if some Rep had the wrong picture, or one incorrect quote or statement about something, you’d be right there discrediting everything else that was said.

   Posted by Shana on August 29, 2007 at 2154 hrs




6. Why blame the author for the publisher’s choice of image?  Or more likely, some web designer’s quick reach into the stock image folder?

   Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 2219 hrs




7. In defense of Owen, if I would ever put my name on anything that is going to get that much exposure, I would make damn sure its accurate.
   Its not that complicated.

   Posted by still Unreal... on August 29, 2007 at 2227 hrs




8. Boy, those new “Zebra” guns with the painted black plastic look much better than the gold plastic ones I had as a kid….

   Hopefully the authors wife won’t mind the yellow plastic pellets getting lost under the couch…..

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 2229 hrs




9. We might speculate that the publisher needed a graphic.  They wanted to do it themselves but were facing a deadline.  It was after hours, so he hurried to the local Wal-Mart only to discover that the only scary looking pistol they had was an air-soft gun ...

   And hey.  Who would know the difference?

   Posted by Brian on August 29, 2007 at 2237 hrs




10. Jeff:  Could you please explain, or shed some light on this for these folks?  They’re all just scratching their heads.  I know there’s a perfectly good explanation, and it’s probably not as ridiculous as all these people are assuming.  Thanks.  Bruce

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 2255 hrs




11. Where’s the old lady holding up unfired pellets claiming they hit her house?

    Posted by james wigderson on August 29, 2007 at 2309 hrs




12. BTW, may I caution you all to remember that “the publisher(s)” are probably part of a privileged few amongst us who have been in the back of the current President’s limo?  How quickly we all forget.  I am certain there is a reasonable explanation for this.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 2317 hrs




13. A picture of an air gun—so we shouldn’t take the commentary seriously?

    Have you ever looked at that picture in the top left of this page?
    

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 2327 hrs




14. Studies have shown most B&S;readers are looking at the brunette on the right side of the page, not the guys on the left.

    Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 2352 hrs




15. John, then how did they catch this mistake?  Maybe liberals can on only look at the left side of the screen, but us conservatives have the ability to look at the right and then left side of the screen.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0104 hrs




16. Studies have shown most B&S;readers are looking at the brunette on the right side of the page, not the guys on the left.

    I really like that ad.  Everyone please click on it 20 times a day so they’ll keep buying ad space.

    Posted by Jed on August 30, 2007 at 0703 hrs




17. That photo is from istockphoto.com it’s especially funny because a search for hand gun yields many photos of real guns including one of a glock that is very very similar to this photo and it’s also higher in the search results. Also, if you read the review comments on the photo, people are telling you that it’s not a real gun.

    Posted by Matt on August 30, 2007 at 0800 hrs




18. After reading the article, I guess it doesn’t matter becuase it is simply a blurb that says Doyle wants to do x,y&z;.  No commentary about if it is good or bad.  But if this had been a pursasuve piece I would agree that its impact would have been lessened by the photo.  It would have made me think - “what the hell does this guy know from guns?”  I am not saying it would prove him wrong but it would hurt his case.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0800 hrs




19. Yes, Dan, because conservatives have super-powers and don’t make mistakes in cognition. 

    Matt (17).  So I called it in (6), no?

    As Wedgie suggests, it ever-so-much reminds one of the vital bullets v. rounds mania.  Facts about the usual process of news production don’t matter (as delivered by Gordon in that other thread). What matters is that you know in your gut that Doyle is wrong, that anyone who writes about him is bad and suspect, and that if someone puts an incorrect caption or picture next to the article, that neutralizes it even more and confirms that your gut was right.

    Look on the bright side.  Many blogs might’ve just stolen an image from anywhere without permission.  At least OnMilwaukee went to a place with clear rights.

    Disclosure: I thought OnMilwaukee was interesting enough that I even started an intermittent and minor blog there.

    Posted by John Foust on August 30, 2007 at 0829 hrs




20. I know that reporters in the print world almost never see a photo or caption before it runs alongside their article.  I have no doubt the same is true for OMC.  The lackey at OMC assigned to find a gun photo screwed up…so what.  Has nothing to do with Hissom or the content of the article.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0901 hrs




21. I know that reporters in the print world almost never see a photo or caption before it runs alongside their article.  I have no doubt the same is true for OMC.  The lackey at OMC assigned to find a gun photo screwed up…so what.  Has nothing to do with Hissom or the content of the article.

    Ever heard of journalistic crediblity?

    Some people will excuse the author and blame the graphics person…  Some people will say ‘it doesn’t matter’ what the photo is.

    There are plenty of people who are part of a news publication.  Proofreaders, writers, editors, etc. They all (in theory) work to output a product.  As a news publication, Photo’s are put there for a purpose.  They are part of the content.  They matter.  They make an impression. 

    What the photo demonstrates to me is that CLEARLY as a news organization I can say that as far as knowlegde and journalistic credibility goes, with regard to guns, this news organization is ignorant.  If anyone of the many people involved in authoring, designing and publishing, proofreading that content had knowledge of guns they would have seen their blunder.

    Which just reiterates something that should be obvious to most people.  Now more than ever, the people who report the news probably have little to NO knowledge about what they are reporting on.

    As a news consumer news isn’t fact, its just data that should be processed like all other inputs.

    What did Mark Twain use to say? 

    “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.” -Mark Twain

    
    Anyone remember seeing Katie Couric on the today show during the DC sniper shooting rampage when she proclaimed in her attempt to hype up everything (after reading a brief prepared for her) that “as I understand it this particular assault rifle is especially dangerous because it has groves in the barrel that spin the bullet like a spiral pass in football making it more accurate and more deadly” (paraphrasing)

    As gun owners across the country laughed because they know that EVERY rifle has those groves in the barrel called “rifling” hence the name?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0942 hrs




22. Bruce #12
    BTW, may I caution you all to remember that “the publisher(s)” are probably part of a privileged few amongst us who have been in the back of the current President’s limo?

    And .. this means what to me?

    Posted by Brian on August 30, 2007 at 0950 hrs




23. If someone pointed that gun at me and asked for my wallet, I would certainly turn it over.  So I don’t really see what’s wrong with the picture.  Most of us arent’ going to go make gun flash-cards so we can learn which ones are real and which ones are air guns.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0956 hrs




24. Xx, Couric also recently sat in front of a graphic and read a story about a “bullet shortage.”  OMFG!!!!  She confused bullets and rounds!  It’s a corns-piracy!  She hates ‘Merica!

    Yes, it would be grand if all media had redundant editors at every step of the process who corrected errors like “photo’s” and “groves” or even simple transpositions like “knowlegde”. Even I make mistakes.  I’d love to have an editor check my comments before posting so I don’t suffer an embarassing typo.

    But online media comes in various forms and qualities.  You have your undies in a bundle because OnMilwaukee made a mistake?  You’re upset because their editorial process doesn’t have an editor to verify that an ancillary graphic exactly matches a story?  You’ll pay to get what you really want.  It doesn’t make OnMilwaukee “ignorant,” or as another thread here on B+S recently put it as I recall, “igornant.”

    Trainspotting is fun and all, but get a grip.  Some hourly who’s paid to assemble columns and graphics went to iStockPhoto and searched for “gun”.  It is a gun.  It happens to be an air gun.  They weren’t gun-geeky enough to identity make, model, caliber and clip capacity.  The idiots!  It’s an outrage!  They’re totally discredited!

    Posted by John Foust on August 30, 2007 at 1018 hrs




25. John John John…  Who’s got their panties in a bunch?  xoxo

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 1023 hrs




26. Xx, I vote for Owen, as he posted this as significant.  “It pretty much discredits any authority that the author thought he had.”  Shucks, 20+ years of journalism, down the drain.

    Hugs and kisses,

    - John

    Posted by John Foust on August 30, 2007 at 1035 hrs




27. I will agree that it was Owen’s coment on the author’s credibility that got my boxer-briefs in a bunch.  OMC as an orgnization should take the blame for a dumb photo choice….it still has nothing to do with the author’s REAL credibility on the subject.

    Some folks don’t know that print reporters don’t write headlines either (we couldn’t, because we didn’t know the column width in which the article would run).  I started reporting professionally when I was still in high school (sports back then—high school stuff).  About two months into the job, the CNI editors put a “Titan swimmers win own invitational” headline on an article I wrote.  Problem was, the Titan swimmers finished third.  Yes, it goes to the credibility of the publication, but challenges to my own integrity were unfounded, even though expected.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 1121 hrs




28. John and Patrick have nicely rebutted the silly claim that this photo “pretty much discredits any authority that the author thought he had.” Another important point: The column that this photo illustrates is not a news story that refers to a specific gun or incident; it’s an opinion piece.

    Tell you what: We in the media can always improve, and it would be great if every photo editor knew the difference between an air gun and a handgun and a bullet and a round.

    Likewise, it would be great if everyone who commented about the media on a blog like this understood how the media works, and knew the difference between news stories and opinion columns, the respective roles of reporters and assigning editors and copy editors and the research department, and so on. Agree?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 1149 hrs




29. What is the difference between a bullet and a round?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 1151 hrs




30. a bullet is the projectile, the round is the entire bullet shell casing, powder, primer, etc.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 1200 hrs




31. Yes, it would be grand if all media had redundant editors at every step of the process who corrected errors like “photo’s” and “groves” or even simple transpositions like “knowlegde”.

    
    John - Ms. Curric’s mistake wasn’t calling rifling a groove - it was stating that having grooves made a particular type of rifle more dangerous than others.  See the point, that I guess escaped you, is that all rifles have groves thus the relative dangerousness of a rifle is not grove dependant.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 1215 hrs




32. Joe, I’ve understood what makes a “rifle” different since I was 8 or so.  I remarked on Xx’s careless typing and/or spelling. Amusing, given the context.

    Oh, wait, you spell it “grove” too.  Never mind.  Is this one of those UK or Canadian spelling differences?  Or like ‘caliber’ and ‘calibre’?

    Shhh!  I’ll tell you a secret.  Newscasters aren’t always as smart as they look!

    Last time I asked for a buck for every time someone confused “upload,” “download” and “install.”  This time I’ll ask for a buck for every time I’ve heard someone mix up “Microsoft Windows” and “Microsoft Office.”

    Posted by John Foust on August 30, 2007 at 1221 hrs




33. See, John, I’m an equal opportunity ridiculer. It just so happens that the news media is generally both left and ignorant (as opposed to the general population which is merely ignorant) so these sort of things seem to crop up more often, especially with regards to guns because most folks on the left fear and revile them (along with SUV’s) as quasi-sentient promoters of evil.

    I’ll make fun of people who don’t know that your copy of Excel can’t be “down” and people who can’t tell an air gun from a real gun no matter what side of the political spectrum they’re on.

    All the same to you, Gordon, I think we’re perfectly justified in saying this paper doesn’t merit any sort of credibility. It just makes the whole publication look amateurish and foolish. You can’t pick and choose to listen to the article with a bad picture and more than you would read a bad article and trust it because of a good picture. The package isn’t sold as “Doug Hissom’s Commentary”...its sold as a whole paper including Doug Hissom’s opinion, the editor’s editing, the reporter’s reporting, and the photography that gets thrown into the mix.

    Posted by k2aggie07 on August 30, 2007 at 2011 hrs




34. Yeah, K2.  Two words: Fox News.

    Posted by John Foust on August 30, 2007 at 2046 hrs




35. Actually, K2, I’ll agree with you. The paper doesn’t merit credibility as a source of news. But I don’t think it purports to be a source of serious news. Its purpose is to promote Milwaukee, not enlighten the world. Per its website, it’s a “daily magazine and city guide.” They probably have one photo editor who’s paid next to nothing and expected to use mostly royalty-free stock images. And I’m guessing the guy doesn’t know the difference between a handgun and and airgun. Is this a damning indictment of the mainstream media? More importantly, are we even looking at a news outlet? Heck no. But then, most of us know better than to look to a city guide for serious reporting.

    Just don’t let it cloud your opinion of the serious media. That’s like me judging all conservative politicians based on the toilet stall toe-tapping shenanigans of one senator.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 2122 hrs




36. That’s like me judging all conservative politicians based on the toilet stall toe-tapping shenanigans of one senator.

    Unfortunately you wouldn’t be alone in doing so.

    Posted by k2aggie07 on August 30, 2007 at 2231 hrs




37. “I’ll make fun of people… that can’t tell and air gun from a real gun…”

    K2,
    Make fun all you want.  We’re all ignorant about something.  You’ve certainly not shown yourself to be all-knowing around here.  Knowledge of guns is totally useless knowledge to most of us.  If I’m going to be ignorant about something, I’m glad it’s something so minor.  But as for general knowledge of subjects that matter, I’d put my brain up against yours any day.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2007 at 0844 hrs




38. This has been so entertaining for me.  I first read the post and thought, heh…A picture is worth a thousand words all right and Hissom’s article was less than that, so he was screwed.  My immediate impression was that he got screwed by some careless employee picking the gun.  I didn’t think it was a political gaffe, a condemnation of OMC or the media in general(although I did mentally add it to ‘the media is at best careless more and more often these days). I didn’t think Owen was ridiculing Hissom or his words, or that he assumed Hissom picked the picture, just that he was pointing out that the average Joe who DOES know anything about guns WILL totally dismiss the article and likely ridicule it to friends who would ‘get it’.  The exaggeration you guys have made of this is fun reading.

    This whole thread has been so…South Park to me.  Thanks guys.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2007 at 1018 hrs




39. So OnMilwaukee.com is “the media”?  Is Owen and B+S?

    Posted by John Foust on August 31, 2007 at 1038 hrs




40. Sorry, careless lumping on my part.  There should have been another comma.  People in this post have expanded to include media (comment 33, Couric gaffes,etc.) in general and that was part of the South Parkian exaggeration I am being entertained by.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2007 at 1050 hrs




41. As for Hissom, I skim his other articles on OnMilwaukee, and I’d say he’s not partisan to any strong degree and otherwise “mostly harmless” and arguably has interesting summaries of news bits, so why would anyone jump on him, either?

    Posted by John Foust on August 31, 2007 at 1053 hrs




42. John F:

    I can’t comment on Doug Hissom’s OMC articles, since I’ve read only a couple.  His history with the Shepherd, however, is proof enough that he has one of the most consistantly liberal viewpoints of any columnist in Milwaukee.  Without respect to whether one agrees or disagrees with those viewpoints, he has made his enemies in town—particularly those on the right.

    That doesn’t mean his liberal leanings come out in OMC columns, I wouldn’t know…but I do think that there are plenty of conservatives in town who see his byline and either skip the article or only read it to see if they can challenge its content.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2007 at 1202 hrs




43. Stock photos are a common trade in any newspaper.
    The page layout has alot to do with the choice of image. Shape, colors and orientation of the object weigh heavily on design. Content is secondary.
    But if they chose to use a 50-caliber machine gun….boy would we hear about the outrage from the right.

    Most neocons cannot understand content. They live by the short first impression image. The millisecond response in the brain and it’s all over for the right wing brain.

    They should always use the Eddie Adams, Pulitzer winning image, that is the ultimate gun image for any related article.
    http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0410/images/adams /execution.jpg

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2007 at 1738 hrs




44. here’s another good gun pic.
    http://www.freakingnews.com/Meat-Gun-Pics-38248.asp

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2007 at 1756 hrs




45. That meat gun would be fun in our house   I’d like to see someone mistake that for a deadly weapon.

    Posted by Shana on August 31, 2007 at 1955 hrs




46. Vegetarians and Vegans would find that deadly.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 01, 2007 at 2043 hrs