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.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.
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.