Chicago Tribune Issues Correction About ‘Assault Weapons’ – Then Whines About It

chi-assault-weapon-chicago-tribune-correction--001

From the Tribune:

Readers count on us to get everything right, every time. When we don’t, we deserve to get called out. That’s fair.

Here’s what isn’t fair, though: Some readers seized this opportunity to accuse us of using this graphic to promote what they termed a specific liberal agenda on the topic of gun control. They saw our labeling mistake as a deliberate misrepresentation, one that made these weapons seem more dangerous. Let me say emphatically that this was a careless mistake, not an intentional deception nor bias. It is regrettable because we got a basic fact wrong, period.”

Waaah! “Don’t accuse us of doing what we’re doing. What difference does it make?”

Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Chicago Tribune Issues Correction About ‘Assault Weapons’ – Then Whines About It

  1. notamobster says:

    Let me say emphatically that this was a careless mistake … we got a basic fact wrong, period.

    When treating an issue of such critical national import, one should probably, maybe, get their “basic facts” straight. Just Saying.

    If you can’t be relied upon to give people the basic facts, why would or should anyone trust you with the more complex facts?

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    Shibboleth… any “in-crowd” word or phrase that can be used to distinguish members of a group from outsiders – even when not used by a hostile other group. The word is less well recognized in British English and possibly some other English-speaking groups. It is also sometimes used in a broader sense to mean jargon, the proper use of which identifies speakers as members of a particular group or subculture.

    Shibboleths can also be customs or practices, such as male circumcision, or a signifier, such as a semiotic.

    We all have them. Revoistas and their ilk do and say things a certain way. We don’t hero worship celebrities, for example. In fact, we go out of our way to not worship them or even recognize them. I won’t even read about, say, Justin Beiber or the Twilight series. I want to keep my brain uncontaminated by the knowledge of that sort of thing. In fact, I want to be able to honestly say that I don’t know anything about it. I am ignorant of it and proud.

    I think it is a shibboleth of the left to be ignorant of firearms. What else could explain their absolute ignorance of the subject and their unwillingness to do even basic research to learn something about the topic? I sincerely think that the left is eschewing knowledge of firearms in the same way I eschew knowledge of Twilight. I think they wear ignorance of guns as a badge of pride. A shibboleth…

    • notamobster says:

      Hmmm. That or arrogance and self-righteousness.

      People begin with a cognitive bias, then (maybe) seek out verification of that bias. When they find a minimal amount of information, they stop looking, happily confirmed in their already existing bias.

      Some of us don’t follow that method of confirmation. Some of us are sciency. Some of us aren’t content with knowing what we believe, but want to know why. Some of us, further attempt to disprove what we believe, so that we may be more secure in our belief.

      In short: Some people are flaming dumbasses, some of us aren’t.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        “That or arrogance and self-righteousness.”

        I have always thought it was that but, after more than a month of this debate, the ignorance is just too deep to be anything but a deliberate ignorance, don’t you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *