First the Spin, Then the Story

The tragedy at Virginia Tech has inspired some wretched spot analysis, like this bit from ABC News.com that Robert Stacy McCain disassembles in the Washington Times.

As Brian Ross himself admits — in a report featuring a photo of a rifle with a high-capacity clip — "Virginia law enforcement officials have not identified the weapon used in the shootings today at Virginia Tech, but …"

But?

But how about the minor detail that this "news" might be completely irrelevant to the crime?

Here's a blanket statement based on my experience in j-school and in the MSM: Reporters take the "too many guns" tack after tragedies like these not because they're liberal, but because it fits so nicely into the "Are your kids next?" formula. Like in the stories about toys that can kill your children, tainted meat that can kill them, and MySpace pages that can kill them, these stories are like fertilizer for factual errors. McCain's post is updated with a thorough debunking.

Also worth reading is Roger Simon's explanation of why reporters are bringing back the gun control debate but the Democrats aren't:

According to exit polls, some 48 percent of voters owned guns in 2000, up from 37 percent in 1996. (This did not necessarily mean more people owned guns, but rather that more gun owners went to the polls.) Among those owning guns, 61 percent voted for Bush.

More significant, however, was what gun ownership did to other voting patterns: Overall, union households gave Gore 59 percent of their votes. But if there was a gun in that union household, the vote was split 50-50 between Bush and Gore.

Comments

[Number 6]

What the hell is wrong with the large MSM outlets? Is it really that hard to do careful research and apply some basic analytical thinking? Do, you know, do journalism?

Do these folks really think that what they're doing has anything to do with reporting? And how do they look in the mirror without seeing whores and hacks looking back at them?

[JW]

This is why I hate the news.

It's little more than a conspiracy of idiots at this point.

[Zoomie Junior]

I was begining to wonder what MSM was going to blame this on. My bets were, in order:

1) The war/GWB
2) Video Games (GTA, Gears of War, and/or God of War)
3) Gangster Rap
4) Guns

[Warren]

Reporters take the "too many guns" tack after tragedies like these not because they're liberal, but because it fits so nicely into the "Are your kids next?" formula. Like in the stories about toys that can kill your children, tainted meat that can kill them, and MySpace pages that can kill them, these stories are like fertilizer for factual errors.

BZZZZZZZZZZ sorry but reporters do take the "too many guns" tack because they're liberal. Being liberal is also why they flog the "are your kids next" angle. they want the government to regulate all manner of things like toys, meat, and the internet.

[Hooked on Innuendo]

So what's the point? That a journalist is only allowed to write about things that are approved by Robert McCain?

Brian Ross points out that at the time the weapons used at the VT massacre had not been identified. So it's up to the readers really to decide what weight they should give his blog post in relation to recent events.

[Isaac Bartram]

Would it really hurt reporters to get a little more literate about firearm and firearm part terminology?

I mean, how tough can it be?

[joe]

Um, Warren, do reporters take the "are your kids next" angle when discussion p0rn and video games because they're liberal, too?

How about the "mushroom clouds over your city" stance on WMD reporting? Clearly liberal bias.

Anyway, is your refrigerator harboring a deadly killer? Tune in at 11 to find out.

[Kwix]

Number 6,
Not to sound all stodgy but I blame CNN. It is the '24hour, breaking news, gotta be first with the story, the facts be damned' mentality that drives most of this drivel. Of course, in the good old days of only print the reporters and editors had at least a couple of days to make up BS stories and craft them so they wouldn't get caught whereas today we have bloggers gunning for facts so I guess it evens out somehow.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Mr Weigel, there is a lot of plausibility to your argument, however, Warren is correct as well. It isn't so much that there is a conscious bias as there is a set of expectations inherent in the culture of media that include Warren's points and yours.

Disclaimer: Obviously media culture has changed in the last decade, but the so-called mainstream dogs still run in the same pasture, Rush, Fox, and the blogosphere notwithstanding.

[Asharak]

I was begining to wonder what MSM was going to blame this on. My bets were, in order:

1) The war/GWB
2) Video Games (GTA, Gears of War, and/or God of War)
3) Gangster Rap
4) Guns

They did, and they also blamed porn and Islam.

[David]

BZZZZZZZZZZ sorry but reporters do take the "too many guns" tack because they're liberal. Being liberal is also why they flog the "are your kids next" angle. they want the government to regulate all manner of things like toys, meat, and the internet.

I disagree, Warren. Journalists take the "Are your kids next" angle because it works.

[thoreau]

I don't watch Fox News much, but they seem to like to scare people with stories about deadly perils facing The Children as well.

Fear sells. Deal with it.

[Asharak]

I disagree, Warren. Journalists take the "Are your kids next" angle because it works.

Not to mention that Fox is also part of the MSM, as much as they deny it.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Fear sells. Deal with it.

I'm afraid to deal with it.

[Asharak]

thoreau | April 17, 2007, 2:54pm | #

I don't watch Fox News much, but they seem to like to scare people with stories about deadly perils facing The Children as well.

Fear sells. Deal with it.

Exactly. You beat me to it.

[Warren]

joe,
Yes, expecting the government to fix society, in this case by ridding it of of harmful things like porn and video games, is a defining liberal trait. But I take your point that fear-mongering is "good for business" and also a favorite sport of conservatives.

[Dave W.]

But how about the minor detail that this "news" might be completely irrelevant to the crime?

Magazine size is certainly relevant to the crime. It may have turned out that the magazine size is not quite as big as in the big gun, but the issue of magazine size is and remains relevant.

I guess they could have illustrated the issue by showing one body with three bullet holes, one body with 8 bullet holes and a third body with 16 bullet holes, if they really wanted to graphically demonstrate the issue in a fair and relevant way, but I am okay with just showing the gun because it gets the point across in a less inflammatory way.

[Virginia Tech]

Virginia Tech reports shooting (multiple)

[John]

The 24 hour news channels have done more to reduce the collective intelligence of this country than anything else. I work with educated people who ought to know better who won't let their kids play outside for fear of them being abducted by a molester. This despite the obvious fact that a individual child's chance of being abducted is near zero and probably lower today than it was when they were kids. But the news channels and 24/7 coverage of every local news story has convinced them it is an epidemic. No amount of facts and statistics will convince them otherwise.

Thanks to this indicent, there will no convincing anyone that their kids are not in danger of being mowed down at college. Wonderful.

[Matt L]

Magazine size is certainly relevant to the crime.

Dave W.,
How is it relevant?

[John]

Yeah Dave,

Because someone with an eight round magazine is so much less dangerous to unarmed college kids than someone with a 16 round magazine.

[Hooked on Innuendo]

Thanks to this indicent, there will no convincing anyone that their kids are not in danger of being mowed down at college. Wonderful.

Yes, I'm sure college campuses today are barren due to parents forcing their kids to stay home, because everybody but John is an idiot.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

The Virginia Tech post above links to Storm Front which, to all appearances is a neo-Nazi site.

This picture is for them and whoever linked to them.

[Number 6]

First off, we're talking about the media here. Save the fucking gun control discussions for any of the other threads where people are shrieking about that subject.

Let's move on: Understand that most journalists, like most people, do have a semi-conscious pro-state bias. But to presume that there is some sort of nefarious motive behind their reporting is to miss the real issue entirely. The only motive is to build ratings and circulation.

And drivel sells.

Fear sells.

Oversimplification sells.

Loud, martial music sells when used as an intro.

In short, the problem begins with the audience, and continues because of the willingness of some "reporters" to pander and peddle pablum.

[Dave W.]

Because someone with an eight round magazine is so much less dangerous to unarmed college kids than someone with a 16 round magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzel_Union_Building_shooting

Geez, John, you are running me ragged today.

[jet]

When guns are outlawed . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070417/wl_nm/japan_shooting_repeat_dc

[Dave W.]

How is it relevant?

Because if small magazines were as generally effective as large ones, then there would be no political resistance to limitations on magazine size.

[John]

God you are reaching Dave. The woman had a bolt action rifle for God sakes. Further, the only reason that woman was disarmed is because she wasn't smart enough to bring a second weapon.

No innuendo you idiot we get zero tolerance policies and every sort of nutso campus policies just like we had after Columbine. Not everyone but me is an idiot, just you.

[Dave]

Diane Feinstein is already saying this proves we need to renew the "assualt weapons" ban. So by that logic, we should ban all Korean immigrants from American universities. Well come on, you can't say his ethnicity played LESS of a role than assualt weapons, since they weren't involved at all.

[Ron Hardin]

The important thing is that you not tune away. This constrains every media story to soap opera. That's all you need to know.

Of course you do tune away, but a large part of the audience does not, namely their target audience.

I myself want to know what to do in the event of an emergency water landing. I missed the telecast at 7, years ago.

[John]

"Because if small magazines were as generally effective as large ones, then there would be no political resistance to limitations on magazine size."

No because it is a usless and stupid measure that just encourages more gun control. If I honestly beleived controlling the size of magazines would satisify gun control advocates I would be all for it.

[Matt L]

Dave W. | April 17, 2007, 3:16pm | #
Because someone with an eight round magazine is so much less dangerous to unarmed college kids than someone with a 16 round magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzel_Union_Building_shooting

Geez, John, you are running me ragged today.

That's not really a relevant example Dave. A 7mm Mauser rifle (bolt action) is not the same as a 9mm pistol (semiauto).

[David]

Ron,

You've regularly made that point over the years. What exactly do you mean by it?

[Drew W]

"Because if small magazines were as generally effective as large ones, then there would be no political resistance to limitations on magazine size."

And if small magazines were as generally effective as large ones, there'd be copies of The Sewanee Review in the waiting room of your doctor's office.

[Dave W.]

That's not really a relevant example Dave. A 7mm Mauser rifle (bolt action) is not the same as a 9mm pistol (semiauto).

Sure it is. the relevance is that if a 9mm pistol, semiautomatic, were made to be as difficult to reload as a 7mm Mauser rifle, with bolt action, then there would be less dead people and a big hero, instead of more dead people and a self-inflicted wound ending.

The only question is whether a 9mm pistol could be made as difficult to reload as the 7mm Mauser rifle. I think modern technology is up to that task. they do wonderful things with aspirin bottles these days.

[LarryA]

What the hell is wrong with the large MSM outlets?

It isn't what reporters don't know that trips tem up. They'll research that. It's what they do "know." They accept the statement, "Maryland has a high crime rate, therefore it needs tough gun control." as factual despite the fact that Maryland has prided itself on having the toughest gun control of any state for more than a quarter century, and the crime rate is still high. Most MSM reporters and editors believe (gun control) = (crime control) on a level that simply precludes their questioning the idea.

"It has had a devastating impact on elections because the NRA has targeted and spent millions of dollars distorting individual members' views and Al Gore's views."

The NRA directly quotes candidates' speeches and literature, and cites the language in the firearms legislation they propose. How is that "distorting individual members' views?"

In his two terms as president, Bill Clinton had succeeded in making gun control a mainstream political issue and was able to convince hunters that banning assault rifles and cop-killer bullets would in no way harm their sport. Gore was not able to pull this off.

Gore failed mainly because the hunters' experience with Clinton's legislation, as well as his other anti-gun stances, taught them better. Experience counts.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who didn't join the NRA until August, 2006, when he decided to run for president, now finds it politically advantageous to brag about being a hunter, even though he has rarely hunted.

Exactly what Al Gore tried, and gun owners saw through. The Democrats' "we aren't coming after your hunting guns" message has about the same effect on firearm owners that "seperate but equal education" has on blacks.

The fact that Democrats and MSM reporters don't understand this yet exhibits massive distain for pro-gun people.

[Dave W.]

because she wasn't smart enough to bring a second weapon

If they sold 9mm handguns and ammo at McLanahan's or the UniMart, then I think she would have brought plenty.

[David]

Dave W,

How well do you suppose a gun that's inefficient and difficult to use would sell? Wouldn't that drive a black market for the earlier "easy to use" versions?

[joe]

"joe,
Yes, expecting the government to fix society, in this case by ridding it of of harmful things like porn and video games, is a defining liberal trait."

No, it's not. If it were "defining" of liberalism, liberals would never take the anti-state position (as they so often do), and conservatives would never take the prohibitionist position. You're simply using a lazy "liberal= state" formulation, which is about as useful as "conservative=freedom." It wasn't an abondonment of principle by George Bush and other conservative Texans that made them support the gay sex ban.

Number 6's "pro-state bias" is little better. The same polls that demonstrate that reporters are more likely to vote Democrat than the general public also show that they are more likely to support Free Trade. There is a viewpoint bias among Big Media, but neither of these characterizations capture it accurately.

John,

Could you repeat that? I totally spaced in the middle of your - ooh! Shiny thing!

[highnumber]

I myself want to know what to do in the event of an emergency water landing. I missed the telecast at 7, years ago.

???
?!?!?!
Bwah?
Juh?

[joe]

Dave,

Just to be safe, we'd better ban any immigrants that look Korean, too.

John,

"If I honestly beleived controlling the size of magazines would satisify gun control advocates I would be all for it." It could split them. Brady checks and bulk-purchase limits certainly haven't satisfied Sarah Brady, but they led the middle third of the country to stop supporting additional gun control, and made gun control advocacy a political loser instead of a winner.

It's the same lesson you refuse to learn about Al Qaeda - we aren't trying to satisfy bin Laden, we're trying to remove ordinary people's motive for siding with the incorrigible radicals.

[Dave W.]

How well do you suppose a gun that's inefficient and difficult to use would sell? Wouldn't that drive a black market for the earlier "easy to use" versions?

There is no single answer to that question. Many, many people would be satisfied with a three bullet handgun and/or a three bullet rifle. They would say they were not. they would scream that at the top of their lungs if such a restriction went into effect at the national level. And then they would quiet down. Sure, the 4th, fifth, sixth and seventh bullets have some theoretical marginal utility in a personal defense situation, but that utility is way small compared to showing a loaded gun and/or firing the first round.

To the extent a black market did develop, it would not be like the black market for "bathtub gin" during prohibition. Rather, the question for people who wanted larger magazines would be, "what the hell do you need that for?" that black market would not be casual like a speakeasy or a smokeeasy. It would be more like the black market for untracked fertilizer or bulk meth constituents. in other words, a small black market, difficult for just any disturbed looney to tap in to. Not all black markets are created equal.

Chances are, the deranged looney who wanted to go on a shooting rampage would bring more (3 shot) guns. Which increases the risk he would be detected before the shooting started and also increase the chances that someone could bring him down while switching guns.

[mediageek]

Can someone confirm:

Is Dave W. spouting all sorts of unbaked ideas on topics he doesn't know anything about?

[Kwix]

It isn't what reporters don't know that trips tem up. They'll research that. It's what they do "know." They accept the statement, "Maryland has a high crime rate, therefore it needs tough gun control." as factual despite the fact that Maryland has prided itself on having the toughest gun control of any state for more than a quarter century, and the crime rate is still high.

Absolutely!! The MSM (Fox News, I'm talking to you too) will take the word of a government official or organization at face value with little or no research to back it up. The Guns=Violence angle is one as is anything put out by the DEA/ONDCP. Drugs are bad no questions asked. Somebody further up the thread mentioned that "fear sells" and I think they are absolutely correct.

[Bagger]

"Many, many people would be satisfied with a three bullet handgun and/or a three bullet rifle."

mediageek-

Confirmed.

[Guy Montag]

BZZZZZZZZZZ sorry but reporters do take the "too many guns" tack because they're liberal. Being liberal is also why they flog the "are your kids next" angle. they want the government to regulate all manner of things like toys, meat, and the internet.

You hit the buzzer on the head. Somehow this denial was used by Mr. Weigel in a recent story about how the MSM 'correctly' ignores the 9/11 conspiracy nuts, who just happen to be on the Left and show how wacky the Left can be. They have no trouble showing the Buchananites or Falwells of the "Right" and they praise each other for "exposing" that fringe and naming it mainstream.

Cue some loon saying 70% of Americans still believe Iraq was involved in 9/11.

I wonder if this is something one must memorize in J school, like the unqualified statement that Accounting majors have to memorize in real college.

[joe]

Come on, Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell are orders of magnitude more popular than 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[mediageek]

Bagger-

Thanks.

I think the biggest problem with reporters and firearms is the fact that very, very few of them have even a smidgen of a clue about them.

As a result of their general (deliberate?) ignorance on the topics of guns, gun laws, and gun safety, reporters tend to spout some embarrassingly idiotic shit.

[Matt L]

Sure, the 4th, fifth, sixth and seventh bullets have some theoretical marginal utility in a personal defense situation, but that utility is way small compared to showing a loaded gun and/or firing the first round.

It's not a marginal utility if you miss with the first three shots Dave.

[David]

Is Dave W. spouting all sorts of unbaked ideas on topics he doesn't know anything about?

Dave is focused on all the "if statements"(e.g. if he couldn't get off more than one shot without having to reload, he couldn't have killed so many people) that need to be true for Cho Seung-hui to have committed this atrocity and assigning percentages of blame to the "enablers". By his line of thinking, Sony will have to answer for making the alarm clock that woke Cho up that morning, because if he'd stayed in bed, none of this would have happened.

[thoreau]

So here's the dilemma for Sony: If the snooze bar had activated when gently bumped, then the guy might have slept in. So you'd think that snooze bars that activate when gently bumped will shield Sony from liability. But if somebody else had a snooze bar that activates when gently bumped, and this caused the person to run late and drive fast and get in a car accident, then the snooze bar that activated when gently bumped would make Sony liable.

What do do?

[joe]

You should see reporters write about wetlands and wetlands laws.

It's not that they have a bias about them, just that they don't know anything about the subject.

I suspect that everyone finds reporting about their particular sphere of expertise infuriating.

[ellipsis]

First Joe smacks down Dave:

Just to be safe, we'd better ban any immigrants that look Korean, too.

Then he hits a home run with this:

Brady checks and bulk-purchase limits certainly haven't satisfied Sarah Brady, but they led the middle third of the country to stop supporting additional gun control, and made gun control advocacy a political loser instead of a winner.

Thus, Joe proves that no guns are going to get banned over this tragedy.

[Matt L]

Dirty Harry in Dave W.'s world.

"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as the marginal utility of the sixth shot way small do I really need a gun that fires six shots? Well do I...punk?

[Cracker\'s Boy]

"I myself want to know what to do in the event of an emergency water landing. I missed the telecast at 7, years ago."

Ron - I saw it. You die.

CB

[Cracker\'s Boy]

Film at 11.

CB

[Isaac Bartram]

What do do?

Interesting typo, doctor t.

Anyone who's reading Dave W. is in a lot of doo-doo.

[Francisco Torres]

Um, Warren, do reporters take the "are your kids next" angle when discussion p0rn and video games because they're liberal, too?

No, they do it because they are anti-liberty.

[thoreau]

I'm suing Firefox for not automatically spell-checking my posts.

[mediageek]

"I suspect that everyone finds reporting about their particular sphere of expertise infuriating."

Joe, you're most likely quite right. And in all fairness to the reporters, the decks are pretty heavily stacked against them getting it right given time deadlines, space/time constraints, and general knowledge of a topic beforehand.

I think that this is where bloggers, especially those who have in-depth knowledge on a particular topic, really shine.

[Guy Montag]

It's not a marginal utility if you miss with the first three shots . . .

Or if you are faced with 4 or more targets and hit every shot perfectly.

Wasn't the idea of plugging shotguns to a length of three rounds of it's chamber length supposed to be to give the ducks a "chance"? I wonder why these Leftists want homocidal freaks to have an even better "chance" by restricting the rest of us to "fair fight*" gun rules.

*No such thing as a fair fight but try convincing a Liberal of that without them going into a violent rage.

[joe]

I wasn't smacking down Dave, I was riffing on the "Assault Weapons Ban," because he brought up Feinstein's support for it. Looks like a Korean...get it?

[joe]

Guy,

The thinking is that WE'RE the ducks, and the homocidal freaks have to give US the sporting chance.

[Mike Espinoza]

Speaking of MSM bloviating, can somebody please inform Bill O'Reilly that Cho Seung-hui was a legal immigrant.

[Dave W.]

Dave is focused on all the "if statements"(e.g. if he couldn't get off more than one shot without having to reload, he couldn't have killed so many people) that need to be true for Cho Seung-hui to have committed this atrocity and assigning percentages of blame to the "enablers". By his line of thinking, Sony will have to answer for making the alarm clock that woke Cho up that morning, because if he'd stayed in bed, none of this would have happened.

here is some good beginner-level reading on the general problem (not unique to guns):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause

[isildur]

I don't expect the media to get everything right. I do expect them to not use the shotgun approach in spewing pseudo-information of dubious relevance at their audiences in hopes of hitting the mark with at least one potential 'scoop'.

Like getting that motherfucker Jack Thompson on Fox to ooze his rotten bullshit about video games -- as (what the fuck) a 'video game expert'.

He's a video game expert the way that Pat Robertson is a gay porn expert.

[mediageek]

"The thinking is that WE'RE the ducks, and the homocidal freaks have to give US the sporting chance."

The result, of course, being that you end up criminalizing anyone who possesses such a firearm, regardless of whether or not they intend any harm to anybody.

[David]

He's a video game expert the way that Pat Robertson is a gay porn expert.

Thompson's a repressed gamer?

[tarran]

Isildur, I do not fully agree:

Jack Thomson demanded, and the video game industry produced a violent video game with industry executives as the targets.

I don't think any gay porn has been produced to Robertson's specs.

[ellipsis]

Joe sez:

I wasn't smacking down Dave, I was riffing on the "Assault Weapons Ban," because he brought up Feinstein's support for it. Looks like a Korean...get it?

I understood you were riffing the AWB, and I thought you were directing your comments towards Dave. Hence my thinking you were smacking down Dave.

At any rate, I liked the post.

[ellipsis]

Joe,

BTW, I may disagree with you on the minutia of the gun debate, but I understand your reasons for adopting the points you make. And I understand that you represent a fairly common viewpoint. Which tells me in the grand scheme of things, the 2nd amendment isn't in jeopardy.

[Robert Stacy McCain]

Dang, y'all, I didn't expect Reason readers would find anything to argue about when it came to the Second Amendment. But I guess "ditto, ditto, ditto" is not the libertarian way.

I've updated this angle already, and will update again later ....

[Gahan]

It only takes one well-placed bullet to sever a chandelier or other heavy light fixture from the ceiling, causing it to fall on the shooter, pinning his arms down and thus disabling him in a manner that is both comical and humane. Don't you guys know anything?

[DoC H]

I don't know if anyone else saw this but I happened to be watching fox news and Geraldo was on saying that he found a picture of an "asian" carrying multiple rifles on a facebook webpage and then proceeded to show the picture holding a piece of paper over the face of this person on a laptop screen. Then as he was pulling away, the paper was taken off the laptop's screen, leaving this person visible to anyone watching. He actually said "Now I have no evidence that this person has anything whatsoever to do with todays events." He then stated he had presented the webpage to police and had been specifically told that this was not a person of interest and that this person had absolutely nothing to do with the days events, but for some reason he continued to repetitively talk about the "arsenal of weapons" seen on this internet page of someone that he knew had nothing at all to do with the crime. It was surreal.

[pigwiggle]

"Sure, the 4th, fifth, sixth and seventh bullets have some theoretical marginal utility in a personal defense situation, but that utility is way small compared to showing a loaded gun and/or firing the first round."

Always wondered why the cops carry those queer three shot jobs.

[dhex]

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

if you were in his class, would you have taken these as warning signs?

[Jaydub]

Doc H,

I just watched it on Utube. Scary stuff. Worse yet, I just got off the phone with a Korean-American friend who got spat on in NoVa, and her parents on the west coast had their house vandalized.

Nice country. I'm ready to recommend all Korean-Americans be immediately given a protective detail.

[Mad Max]

Jaydub,

Two incidents of Asian-bashing are two too many, but are you actually suggesting that these incidents are typical of America?

[Jaydub]

I am certainly not stating that they are typical of America. However, the friend in question lives in one of the more tolerant areas, and this gives me pause.

Add to this the Geraldo segment (pick a blog with an "Asian", any at all, he could be the next murder) kind of hysteria, it's deeply concerning.

And what about me? I am someone who lives here on a visa, takes antidepressants, and owns firearms.

[Guy Montag]

Mad Max, I suspect that Jaydub is Fairbanksing.

On to other things . . .

I don't know if anyone else saw this but I happened to be watching fox news and Geraldo was on saying that he found a picture of an "asian" carrying multiple rifles on a facebook webpage and then proceeded to show the picture holding a piece of paper over the face of this person on a laptop screen. Then as he was pulling away, the paper was taken off the laptop's screen, leaving this person visible to anyone watching. He actually said "Now I have no evidence that this person has anything whatsoever to do with todays events." He then stated he had presented the webpage to police and had been specifically told that this was not a person of interest and that this person had absolutely nothing to do with the days events, but for some reason he continued to repetitively talk about the "arsenal of weapons" seen on this internet page of someone that he knew had nothing at all to do with the crime. It was surreal.

Geraldo needs ot go back to CNN or ABC, where that crap is expected. The View might have a spot for Mr. Rivers soon.

[Doc H]

Here's the utube link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynN1MBaPPq0
I was actually talking about the preceding segment right before this particular video. I hope somebody has a copy of that because it is even more outrageous.

[Dave]

"First Joe smacks down Dave:

Just to be safe, we'd better ban any immigrants that look Korean, too."

Just for the record, and I already know Joe gets it, I wasn't literally arguing for banning Koreans. I was being sarcastic. Making the point that there were more Koreans than assault weapons involved in the shooting.

[Zoomie Junior]

Making the point that there were more Koreans than assault weapons involved in the shooting.

HUSH! We don't want reporting the truth to get in the way of ratings!