It’s a distinction without meaningful difference. Yes, a revolver is very different from a semi-auto pistol. Yay, congrats on being factually correct. Are they both lethal devices that can misfire/accidentally fire/easily be fired with a trigger pull? Because THAT is the point of the article.
Where did I say none of the facts need to be correct? Nowhere, that’s where.
The important stuff needs to be clear, but the type of gun is not nearly as important as the fact the guy was restrained on the ground with a gun (any type of gun) to his head. Other facts that are more important than the type of gun are what led up to the events, whether the guy was still armed but only restrained, the color of the individuals in question, etc. The type of gun is so far down the list of details that need to be correct that I wouldn’t even expect it to be mentioned other than “gun.”
Also, even more important is the fact the story had the correct type of gun, only the title (not written by the journalist) is incorrect.
If a journalist can’t get the basic fact of revolver vs Glock right, what other basic facts have they misrepresented?
thats why factual accuracy in news stories is important, especially if the weapon in question is the articles thumbnail, making it the first thing many will notice
The journalist DID get the correct type of gun. The title is not written by the journalist and is the only place revolver is used.
And the way you say, “what other basic facts have they misrepresented” makes it seem like you think this was an intentional thing to skew the story. Only gun nerds will care about that detail, so the editor/copy person who actually wrote the headline likely did no research at all and just used what normal people think of as a generic term for a gun. The point is that the type of gun is not important. Just like if the person had said the officer was wearing a cotton shirt under his uniform when it was actually a poly-cotton blend, it’s not 100% accurate but it doesn’t change the point.
The journalist DID get the correct type of gun. The title is not written by the journalist and is the only place revolver is used.
It’s in the subtitle, and it was produced by the news organization alongside the article. It’s part of the article as released by the journalistic news outlet, it impacts the story, and it’s embarrassing
And the way you say, “what other basic facts have they misrepresented” makes it seem like you think this was an intentional thing to skew the stor
Nice assumption, don’t read shit into what other people say and you won’t get it wrong. My point wasn’t that it’s purposefully wrong at all, just that it is wrong, and an insanely basic thing to get wrong. Assume incompetence before malice, you know?
Only gun nerds will care about that detail
Lol, completely untrue. My wife has no idea about guns and her first comment was that the gun in the thumbnail wasn’t a revolver and she chuckled. It’s a really basic fact to fuck up
so the editor/copy person who actually wrote the headline likely did no research at all
Exactly? If the person doing the tag line for the article couldn’t be bothered to not make a basic error fixed with a 2s web search: why should you trust that the person who wrote the article did, or was checked properly?
The point is that the type of gun is not important
The point is that I learned in my journalism classes that missing basic facts like this erodes trust in you as a news source, for obvious reasons. Well, obvious to people with half a brain, anyway.
Just like if the person had said the officer was wearing a cotton shirt under his uniform when it was actually a poly-cotton blend, it’s not 100% accurate but it doesn’t change the point.
Absolutely not the same at all. What the office wore underneath his uniform is nether relevant nor in the thumbnail next to the article title. The type of gun is both of those things
Again, it’s a very simple concept: if the news source cannot be assed to do a basic fact check on their title when it’s blatantly false by their own thumbnail then they cannot be trusted to fact check jack shit
Oh shit and they didn’t even mention the thread count of his t-shirt. How can these journalists miss “the” real important details?
If they can’t get that simple distinction correct, what does that say about the rest of their reporting?
It’s a distinction without meaningful difference. Yes, a revolver is very different from a semi-auto pistol. Yay, congrats on being factually correct. Are they both lethal devices that can misfire/accidentally fire/easily be fired with a trigger pull? Because THAT is the point of the article.
If none of the facts need to be correct except that police pointed a gun at someone’s head, why read the other 2000+ words in the article?
Where did I say none of the facts need to be correct? Nowhere, that’s where.
The important stuff needs to be clear, but the type of gun is not nearly as important as the fact the guy was restrained on the ground with a gun (any type of gun) to his head. Other facts that are more important than the type of gun are what led up to the events, whether the guy was still armed but only restrained, the color of the individuals in question, etc. The type of gun is so far down the list of details that need to be correct that I wouldn’t even expect it to be mentioned other than “gun.”
Also, even more important is the fact the story had the correct type of gun, only the title (not written by the journalist) is incorrect.
If they get one “unimportant” fact wrong, then why should I trust the “important” facts?
Removed by mod
If a journalist can’t get the basic fact of revolver vs Glock right, what other basic facts have they misrepresented?
thats why factual accuracy in news stories is important, especially if the weapon in question is the articles thumbnail, making it the first thing many will notice
The journalist DID get the correct type of gun. The title is not written by the journalist and is the only place revolver is used.
And the way you say, “what other basic facts have they misrepresented” makes it seem like you think this was an intentional thing to skew the story. Only gun nerds will care about that detail, so the editor/copy person who actually wrote the headline likely did no research at all and just used what normal people think of as a generic term for a gun. The point is that the type of gun is not important. Just like if the person had said the officer was wearing a cotton shirt under his uniform when it was actually a poly-cotton blend, it’s not 100% accurate but it doesn’t change the point.
It’s in the subtitle, and it was produced by the news organization alongside the article. It’s part of the article as released by the journalistic news outlet, it impacts the story, and it’s embarrassing
Nice assumption, don’t read shit into what other people say and you won’t get it wrong. My point wasn’t that it’s purposefully wrong at all, just that it is wrong, and an insanely basic thing to get wrong. Assume incompetence before malice, you know?
Lol, completely untrue. My wife has no idea about guns and her first comment was that the gun in the thumbnail wasn’t a revolver and she chuckled. It’s a really basic fact to fuck up
Exactly? If the person doing the tag line for the article couldn’t be bothered to not make a basic error fixed with a 2s web search: why should you trust that the person who wrote the article did, or was checked properly?
The point is that I learned in my journalism classes that missing basic facts like this erodes trust in you as a news source, for obvious reasons. Well, obvious to people with half a brain, anyway.
Absolutely not the same at all. What the office wore underneath his uniform is nether relevant nor in the thumbnail next to the article title. The type of gun is both of those things
Again, it’s a very simple concept: if the news source cannot be assed to do a basic fact check on their title when it’s blatantly false by their own thumbnail then they cannot be trusted to fact check jack shit
You complete me.