Friday, September 14, 2007

Journalistic malpractice, caught in the act

There ought-a be a law.

David lays out some unfortunate facts to an "investigative" reporter. That is to say; the facts are unfortunate if you happen to be on the side of the argument that flies in the face of reality.

Facts are a funny thing; they don't have emotion, they don't have any agendas, they don't have any bias. They're just facts. They're the truth. You can't argue with them unless you have other facts.

This misguided person is convinced that stopping the legal sale of guns in high-crime areas will have a positive effect. In reality it will just make it harder for high risk victims (law-abiding citizens who must live in high-crime areas) to obtain the means to protect themselves and their families from those who would do harm.

David goes one step further. He points out that there are a number of points no reporter worth the name could possibly ignore. This is willful ignorance. When minds are already made up, and the "truth" is clear, who can be bothered to check the facts? It's not like it's her-- oh wait...

1 comment:

David Codrea said...

I'd love to take credit for that, but as I put before the dressing down began:
"J.T. McAdams responds by email to an 'authorized journalist' shilling for gun control under the guise of objective reporting:"

Perhaps I shold have written that at the very top instead ofr after the article quote, and inserted "Guest Editorial" into the title.

Mr. McAdams sent me his letter for critique. I told him I thought it was perfect as is and asked if I could post it on WoG, to which he graciously agreed.