Nah. The media isn't pushing its bias on guns

So, just another gun-nut story? Not really. Here's the full-size version of the picture from above:



This pic has the caption "A customer browses for guns at the Cabela's store in Fort Worth, Texas March 7, 2008."

The obvious question being, "What the heck has a picture of a gun store in Texas got to do with a guy in Germany?"

Not even surprised anymore.

Wadda ya expect from Reuters? They pay actors for their war pictures.

Stuffed to the rafters. I'd sure like to be the guy to go through it all. What a history lesson.

Teh guy in your av would probably have a good time as well.

While it is a bit sad that this collected so much that he lived alone in a hotel, his house is probably a treasure trove of cool stuff.

As for the picture, whoever put that there is retarded. Might as well put a picture of a naked chimp. I least then I'd giggle.

Where's the link to the original?

Because on the Reuters page, there's no photo.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSL0236222520080402

ETA: Whoops, my bad.

Still, there are at least two possibilities:

1. The people at Reuters said, "Mwa-ha-ha, we get to push our evil anti-gun agenda by showing a picture of a lot of guns with this story about a guy who has a lot of guns -- even though it has nothing to do with the story at hand and even though it's not exactly effective in turning anyone off guns and even though there presumably are pictures of this guy's actual house. We'll even reveal in the caption that it's not the actual guns this guy owns."

2. The people at Reuters were sloppy and threw a photo of a bunch of guns together with the wrong story.

That's weird. I see the picture. It's a link to the bigger picture.

Really?

I just clicked the link, and I see the photo in question right there in the article.

There's a third option:
"We need a picture for this gun article. How about a picture of the man's home or his collection? We don't have time, just grab a picture that's got lots of guns in it."

Either way, it is still misleading. Would it be okay if there was an article about a black civil rights speaker and the picture and caption was of a black drug dealer getting busted by the police?

J.

Reuters needs to be crowded out of reporting.

Personally, I'm betting on a combination of the two. You have to click on the pic to get the caption. It's not in the smaller version in the original story. Laziness and arrogance breed contempt.

Corrected.

That's certainly a possibility, but since Reuters isn't a newspaper, it doesn't "need" pictures in the same way as a newspaper.

Obviously, using the wrong picture accidentally or deliberately is not OK.

What I'm questioning is Bock's alleged rationale for the wrong picture being affiliated with the story.

It's far more likely that sloppiness or deliberate indifference caused Reuters to affiliate an irrelevant pic with the story than that Reuters did so in some sort of plot to get people to think gun owners are crazy or what have you.

The word "collection" doesn't instill the desired amount of fear and hysteria with the public as the word "arsenal". You need lots and lots of fear to sell newspapers.

No, now they should be allowed to have their say. It is their right. However, they also need to state that there will be times when their reporting will not be based on fact but on the culmination of different viewpoints presented as truthful. Let them speak their own viewpoints, just make sure that people understand it's a viewpoint, and not an objective fact.

Facts, truth and integrity. That's how you win an ideological struggle between what is reported and what is the reality of the situation.


J.

You're saying they should admit they write opinion pieces many times. That would, effectively, crowd them out of reporting.

All the more reason to suspect your second option, then. If they don't need a picture, but post one, and it's the wrong one, one that may lead to negative stereotyping, then that puts into doubt the veracity of Reuters' objectivity as a news reporting agency. Wouldn't you agree?

The first option you listed becomes more unlikely as these variables are added into the equation. Why post a picture at all, since as you said they're a news reporting agency? And then when they post a picture, it's not a picture of the man's collection or the man himself, it's a gun store. Why a gun store? Thirdly, there is no attempt other than the caption itself to say what the picture refers. It goes back to my example of the black civil rights leader and a picture of a black male drug dealer being arrested by police. It's intellectually dishonest.


J.

Ah, well if that's what you meant then I agree.


J.

My "alleged rationale"? Now who's making assumptions? I did say that both of your suggestions were probably true.

And, as was already said, why have a picture at all? If there was no valid picture then the story would've run fine on its own. But, no, they weren't content to just point out another gun-nut in writing.

I think it's more an indictment on how lazy Rueters is rather than some giant media conspiracy.

Think of grass crowding out weeds.

Corrected again since it is repeating what the police said.

Unless you have a source to say that isn't what the police said it seems that you are just as guilty of what they are being accused of in this thread, slanting a story to match your own personal ideology.

Which major news service do you think is the most objective?

Unless they're actually quoting a specific officer, the journalist who wrote this is SUPPOSED to choose emotionally neutral language, regardless of how the police described it. Thus, "collection" would be correct, where "arsenal" would not.

I'd like to see an article about all the guns this guy had from a pro-gun journalist.

An arsenal is the proper term for the collection of weapons though.

Words have connotations that go beyond their meanings. Arsenal sounds scary and ominous, more than collection does.

The sign on the counter in the photo says "Used Guns".

In plain English.

As JCD points out though, "arsenal" isn't a neutral term.

Arsenal to me just sounds like a whole lot of weapons.