From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Media Error/Bias Log proposal
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 17:21:00 GMT

In article <1h0k24INNi1f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:

>In a previous article, miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) says:
>
>>This log would be a good way to prove the "media bias" point to a non-believer.
>>If anyone has specific examples (with date and where aired/published) I would
>>be willing to compile them into a file.                   
>
>	I am on the readers panel of a Gannet paper, the Bellingham Herald.
>Jack Keith, the senior editor say that he gets no instructions from
>Gannet on what slant to put on things, and he just writes what he
>thinks.  
>	I brought up an article where they refered to some ordinary rifles 
>as "assault rifles", the misuse and ambiguity of the word (because the
>article didn't specify whether they were "real" assault rifles or
>just "slang" ars, ie ordinary, legal rifles- the reader never found
>out).  I also brought up "assault weapon" as a vauge slag term with
>a plastic meaning.
>	He agreed that they were misleading, said he would avoid vauge slang
>terms like AW and AR in the future.   His explanation for the use of the 
>terms was that neither himself or his reporters know anything 
>about guns, and that these are honest mistakes.   I believe him.

       You see this a lot in the news media, whether you're dealing with 
guns or not.  There's a lot (perhaps most) of cases where a reporter is 
writing about a subject they know little, if anything about, and they end up 
either making major mistakes on their own, or simply taking what the person 
they interviewed said as correct, without checking up on them.  (With daily 
newspapers and broadcasts, this may be impossible to do.)

>	Some of the other people on the panel agreed with me about the 
>mistakes, but it just didn't bug them as much.

        Most people can't see the magnitude of mistakes when they are not 
personally familiar with the subject.  Gun rights are not important to some 
people, so they won't see the mistakes as that important.  When you don't 
know a lot about guns, the difference between a "real" assault rifle and a 
"media" assault rifle just doesn't seem worth getting upset over.

>	I also pointed out a story where they said "semi-automatic-handgun" 
>instead of the more standard, six sylables shorter term: "pistol".
>He said that it was kind of silly to use a much longer, uncommon, synonym
>for a common term, and that it was a mistake of not being technically
>aware.  He said that "if the police say the perp used a purple-people- 
>eating-pistol, that's what the reporter writes down".  
>
>He said it was not an attempt at sensationalism, but just a mistake.
>He said they just didn't have a clue about guns.

       Sometimes I think reporters and editors write for sensationalism in 
their sleep, but not actually on a conscious level.

        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25479 talk.politics.drugs:8017