TexasCHLforum.com

austinrealtor wrote:

lkd wrote:Not trying to defend the cops or the newspaper, but if the robbers pointed a Tec-9 or similar at the victim ( and those are definitely popular), the victim would definitely have told the cops it looked like a submachine gun.

And if the article had stated "looked like a submachine gun" instead of stating authoritatively that it was in fact a submachine gun, then I'd have no problem with it.

I'm just saying, if the victim said, "No, it was definitely a submachine gun", how are the cops (or reporter) going to argue? I guess you could preface all parts of your article with "it was claimed that" or "the victim alleges", but I'd think that most editors will strike that out before it goes to copy, unless it was a CYA thing.

Again, the "preponderance of reason" supports your theory, but it's far more likely the reporter was just parroting something in order to hit a deadline.

Not trying to defend the cops or the newspaper, but if the robbers pointed a Tec-9 or similar at the victim ( and those are definitely popular), the victim would definitely have told the cops it looked like a submachine gun.

SlickTX wrote:...They are not in the business of being right.

Nope, they're in the business of making money, and scaring people makes money.

We can grouse all we want, but this kind of "journalism" has been in existence for over a hundred years.