Ammoland
The national and local media bias against the Second Amendment reached bizarre heights this week when a newspaper headline proclaimed “Shooter kills 4; 30 injured.”
The problem? Well, even a casual reader would note that the tragedy described in the article had nothing to do with a “shooter” but was about a individual who drove her car through a homecoming parade at Oklahoma State University. While the motives of the driver’s actions remain unclear, we find it simply incredible that a headline could be so abundantly off the mark.
The newspaper responsible for the amazing disconnect between reality and reporting – The Traverse City Record Eagle – cited “page designer error” as the cause. Page designer error? Really?
I wonder how that could have happened? It's so strange, as Ammoland says, it's hard to understand.
Could it be the daily, never-ending, slaughter of innocent people by gun violence? Could it be that mass murder has become as American as apple pie?
Yeah, that's it and all the pretending bullshit from gun rights fanatics will not change it. It'll only get worse for them and their misguided cause.
Could it be the daily, never-ending, slaughter of innocent people by gun violence?
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell are you saying, that "gun violence" has gotten bad enough to justify flagant lying by the media, in an attempt to blame guns for violence and mayhem committed without them? One would think that if "gun violence" really is so out of control, there wouldn't be a need to inflate it with blatant lies.
That wasn't a "blatant lie," it was a mistake. And I explained why such a mistake could easily take place.
DeleteThat wasn't a "blatant lie," it was a mistake.
DeleteThe "mistake" being, I take it, writing an entire article about an incident of deadly violence, without first having bothered to ascertain a damned thing about it?
And I explained why such a mistake could easily take place.
Not much of an "explanation," I'm afraid. Look, I realize that the intellectually and morally bankrupt just love operating on assumptions (assumptions treated as proven facts), without first bothering to spend 30 seconds checking on the accuracy of those assumptions. If that's what you "explained," well done.