jrmcm wrote:VMI77 wrote:
Or maybe I'm just a lot older than you are or more familiar with the history of government and media. Go ahead and explain things like the unemployment stats in the same context. Is it paranoid and irrational to to realize that these numbers are intentional lies? I don't know what the truth is....the ME report may be true but I no longer just accept something a government official says as true, and I'm particularly skeptical when information changes to align with particular narratives and ideologies that happen to be the same narratives and ideologies of the people exploiting and "reporting" it.
Again, the ME report may be correct, but I note you didn't provide an explanation of how the reports could be so colossally wrong? The police gave the media the information about what guns were used. Someone at the scene had to pass that information to someone interfacing with the media. How could the police at the scene not know the difference between rifle and handgun casings? Do you have a plausible explanation of how such basic information got confused --along with the claim that the rifle was in the car-- because I don't. Wouldn't the rifle have been on or near the body of the killer as well? Is it likely the ME falsified his report? Probably not in a case getting this much attention, but it wouldn't be the first time it has happened either. Have you seen the actual report? Is is possible the media is distorting the report in the same way they distorted information about Zimmerman and always distort and lie about guns?
Yes, initial reports are often incorrect, and they also happen to frequently be incorrect in a way that serves the agenda of the MSM. We won't really be able to get a true picture of what happened until a least a month from now, possibly longer, and then you'll have to dig for it.....you won't find it in the MSM, just like they "forgot" to mention the guy with a CHL at the mall in Oregon.
I was't aware that I needed to provide an explanation of why initial reports were so colossally wrong. I figured in your advanced age and wisdom, as you were so quick to tout, you would have understood the basic theory of it.
Other notable details of the story that media reports were initially incorrect about:
That the shooter's name was Ryan Lanza
That the shooter's mother was killed at the school.
That there were multiple shooters
That there was a second scene of multiple homicides in New Jersey, tied to the shooter
That the shooter's mother had no connection to the school
So tell me, which media agenda did any of these erroneous reports bolster?
Initial media reports are often wrong for a ton of reasons, the predominant one being the rush to be "first" in reporting, thereby skipping much of the fact checking process. Eyewitness accounts are generally the primary source of this early information, and eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable in no small part because of the reconstructive memory process.
Reporting of unemployment statistics has absolutely no relevance to this incident. Stop bringing it up.
You have completely undermined your argument by intimating that incorrect media reports are deliberate as to further an agenda. Pretty ironic, seeing as the initial media report of the weapon type(s) actually used in the assault is what I came in here to refute.
Sorry, 1) don't understand....thought you might be able to provide a plausible explanation but apparently you can't; and 2) don't take orders from you and I won't stop bringing up official stats as relevant, because they are. The official stats are lies that are parroted uncritically by the press. Their existence demonstrates not only that the government lies, and creates certain lies openly via a process that involves many people both inside and outside the government, but that the media facilitates the lies and doesn't call them on it. So, there is absolutely nothing incredible about the notion that the government and the pressitutes lie to further their agenda.
Your apparent argument that certain examples of what the media misreported do not further an agenda is a strawman: FAIL. I never claimed that every little detail of what the media reports is in furtherance of an agenda. I referenced what was reported about Zimmerman as an example and which very obviously did serve an agenda. In this particular case, as I also pointed out, we don't know enough yet to see the whole picture. I never claimed that the media doesn't make honest errors or that all their errors are agenda driven, so again with your strawman argument: FAIL. Examples of what has been reported that does serve their agenda:
the killer used high capacity magazines
the killer used an "assault rifle"
the killer had hundreds of rounds of ammunition
the killer's mother was a "doomsday" prepper
the killer's mother was a gun collector and had "a lot" of guns
the killer's mother took the killer to a gun range and taught him how to shoot
the killer's mother thought the world was about to end
The first three claims are either true or false and can be proven or dismissed based on physical evidence. The last four claims are all hearsay, or as in the case of taking her son to the gun range, meant to suggest that his mother, the gun nut, is responsible for his killing spree because she taught him how to shoot. She's not around to explain her beliefs so the press can't know what she actually believed....the claims about her are intended to make her look like a nut, and hence, to paint people with several guns who make preparations for an unpredictable future, and teach their children to shoot, as nuts.