Unless
you have been completely out of it for quite a while, you probably already know
all about the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado. Oh, but do you really? For that matter, do any of us really know?
No, I am
not about to stir the conspiracy fires, but at the risk of sounding plumb
asinine at a time like this, I would like to focus more of the atrocious
reporting of the tragedy in this piece.
The image above should give you some indication of what I am talking
about if it hasn’t already been brought to your attention.
It all
started around 7:00 a.m. CDT when our television was first turned on, and my
wife asked me if I knew about what happened in Aurora a few hours earlier. I did not at the time, and she went on to
inform me that 12 were dead, which was about the same time as I was reading a [MSNBC]
headline that declared that 14 were dead.
Yes, I
understand that it is very difficult to keep the facts straight when dealing
with multiple “official” sources of information at a scene like that. However, around an hour later, the breaking
news banner that could be seen on the screen under a correspondent reporting
live from the scene had, “12 Dead, 50 Hurt,” while she was reporting that at
least 12 were dead and 38 had been wounded.
Since 12+38=50, was it that 50 in total were hurt, with 38 of the rest being
just wounded? After all, casualty counts
from war zones are usually presented as the number of dead being separate from the
number of wounded, unless clearly specified otherwise.
[CNN] and
[FOX News] were also reporting 12 dead, 50 hurt at the time. So, do not think that I am being unfair to
NBC News.
3-4 hours
later, the breaking news banners were finally changed to read, “At Least 12
Dead, 38 Wounded.” By the time for the [NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams] to air, the reported casualty count stood at
71 shot, 12 dead and 59 wounded.
Be
assured that we love Brian Williams. For
he comes off as a highly-respectable journalist with a great sense of humor,
which is a combination that my wife and I find very appealing. So, it hit even harder when during an
interview with an eyewitness to the movie theater massacre, we heard him tell her,
“We Americans do not make much eye contact.
So, I can’t blame you for not getting a good look at his face,” or
something quite similar.
In all
fairness, it may have been on account of not being used to the thinner air, or that
he was trying to make other reporters feel better about themselves. For aside from Brian’s comment being rather
insulting to most (if not all) who do not live in (or at least spend a great
deal of time around) a run-down inner city, asking the eyewitness if she had
seen his face was a waste of airtime since it had been already established that
the gunman had been wearing a full gasmask.
(Okay, maybe not.)
As for
[CNBC], they appeared to be going about their usual business every time I
checked. That is, except for the one
time when I heard it being reported that the gunman had a .40 caliber [Glock],
another unidentified handgun, a [Remington 870] shotgun and a Smith &
Wesson AR-15-type assault rifle.
Granted, he was close, but I wonder how many at both Smith & Wesson
and Colt will be all that forgiving? For
Colt is the maker of the [AR-15] while Smith & Wesson has the
[M&P15].
No, I am
not expecting absolute perfection, but I do hope for much better news coverage
than what we have been offered lately. Alas,
in a day and age when one has thousands of news outlets available, I would
think that all of the major networks would be making more of an effort to get
it as right as possible—albeit only just in the hope of keeping what share of
the market they still have.
Please Also Visit:
and
