Lack of Diversity Explains Why NY Times Got NRA Story So Wrong: Instapundit


The New York Times had to retract what appeared to be a great gotcha. The paper of record reported that attendees at the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Nashville had to remove the firing pins in their guns as a condition of entering the gathering. Alas, that turned out not just to be wrong, but spectacularly so.

A damning assertion of hypocrisy — except that it wasn't even close to true. The only guns with firing pins removed were the display guns on the convention floor. In fact, several gun bloggers tweeted a photo of themselves carrying fully functional firearmsfrom the press room, forcing The Times into an embarrassing — though still incomplete — correction. It was especially embarrassing because a simple check of the NRA website or The Tennessean would have revealed the truth. But The Times' editors saw a chance to score a cheap shot and got carried away in their excitement. (MSNBC got burned, too.)

Glenn Reynolds, the University of Tennessee Law School professor who runs Instapundit, argues that the Times needs more diversity in its newsroom. As with other recent major mistakes in the mainstream media (Rolling Stone's story about gang rape at University of Virginia and a bizarre Bloomberg bit about Nancy Reagan endorsing Hillary Clinton for president), Reynolds writes that major newsrooms aren't just filled with groupthink but with people who share the same worldview.

There are a lot of those lately, it seems, and they have a couple of things in common. The first is that they are a product of ignorance stemming from a lack of newsroom diversity. Anyone with any knowledge of guns, or the NRA, would have doubted the claim that firing pins were removed from people's carry guns. But such familiarity is apparently unwelcome at The TimesRolling Stone's lurid gang-rape story read like bad fiction (which it was) but fed prejudices about fraternities and "white privilege" in a campus "rape culture." And the notion that Reagan might endorse Clinton was believable only to people who didn't know much about Reagan but had high hopes for Clinton.

The other thing these stories have in common is that they all served Democratic Party talking points, whether based on anti-gun thinking, "war on women" sloganeering, or pro-Hillary sentiment. For whom journalists are rooting, of course, is no mystery to most news media consumers, but it's telling that the errors so often point in the same direction. (As columnist Kurt Schlichter tweeted, the corrections to news stories never seem to make conservatives look worse than the original.) That's a diversity problem, too, of course: When everyone in the newsroom shares the same political leaning, groupthink and outright propagandizing get a lot easier.

Read the whole thing.

NEXT: Castro Absolves Obama for U.S. 'Imperialist Agression', Congress Is Back in Session, 88% of Americans Have Health Insurance: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In other news… water is wet.

    Seriously, the only people who buy these things are people already IN the echo chamber… right? Well, them and old people. Apparently old people believe anything.

  2. because a simple check of the NRA website or The Tennessean would have revealed the truth

    Hell, a check of Snopes would have done

    1. The world would be a better place if people checked snopes before writing any articles.

      1. Pass this on to everyone you know!

        1. Try this one, weird trick to avoid being tricked by misleading claims!

      2. I know, that article about the FDA admitting that they let people inject arsenic in chicken keeps popping up on my facebook newsfeed. It’s always the same type of people too: super crunchy middle class white chick, white dude with dreads who is going full vegan, obese mother of 4 who blames her problems on “not enough organic” and so on.

      3. The monkey-trial guy?

  3. But such familiarity is apparently unwelcome at The Times.

    Well, yeah. Anyone with such familiarity is an intolerant person, and tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance.

    1. How dare you, sir?! I will not tolerate your claim that I am intolerant of intolerance. How closed minded of you.

  4. Look, if gun nuts weren’t so gun nutty the Times would never have made this mistake. It’s obviously the NRA’s fault for being so extreme and nutso that they made such an error believable.

  5. You know who does require the firing pin to be removed? The US Army on every charter flight I’ve been on.

  6. Arnold sure did have some nice lats, didn’t he?

      1. I prefer the bodybuilders of the 50s to the 70s. These days they all have tiny little heads – no classic proportions.

        /no homo

          1. Reminds me of the Joe Weider “98 pound weakling” ads in comic books in the late 60’s / early 70’s. Classic come on to get into lifting.

            1. FYI: It’s Steve “Hercules” Reeves

        1. The 50s bodybuilders were pretty much not on drugs, and looked human. The 70s bodybuilders just took anabolics, mostly, and still resembled humans. Nowadays they take insulin and all sorts of crazy shit in addition to anabolics and they’re not even human anymore.

        2. Hermann Goerner. Deadlifted 800 at some time in the 20s. That’s the look to shoot for. Hitler moustache and all.

          1. You know who else rocker the “Hitler” musta… Never mind…

    1. True story – bought a bodybuilding magazine recently just to get the Ahhhhhnold centerfold to hang on the wall when we watch “Commando”, “Predator”, “Terminator”, “Conan”, “True Lies”, etc.

      Probably latent HOMO

      1. Once in a while I like to put on Pumping Iron – the “documentary” was pretty much BS but still good viewing for the 70s vibe.

        1. Arnold is saw awesome in that movie! Seeing that convinced me he’s one smart motherfucker. Subsequent retardation caused by living in CALEEFORNEEUH too long apparently stunted that somewhat, but still – he was a self-marketing genius on the level of Madonna.

          Plus…..the perfect body (NO prolly a little HOMO)

      2. What do you hang on the wall when you watch Kindergarten Cop?

  7. You mean living in some sort of echo chamber gives us journalism like this?

    World leaders are once again racing to avert disastrous levels of global warming through limits on greenhouse gas emissions. An agreement may be in reach, but because of the vast supplies of inexpensive fossil fuels, protecting the world from climate change requires the even more difficult task of disrupting today’s energy markets.

    The White House last month released a blueprint to reduce United States emissions by as much as 28 percent by 2025. The plan lays the groundwork for the formal international climate talks this December in Paris, where the goal is a treaty on emissions that will seek to limit the rise in global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. Beyond 3.6 degrees, scientists say, the most catastrophic climate consequences will occur, possibly including the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.


    Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels have warmed the planet by about 1.7 degrees. We are already experiencing the consequences of this warming. In recent weeks, we have learned that the world had its warmest winter on record and that Arctic sea ice hit a new low, even as intense storms continue to inflict harm on communities globally.

    Too good to fact check, indeed.

    1. Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman professor of economics at the University of Chicago,

      The fucking UNCLE MILTY SCHOLAR of econ!! The irony – it burns….

    2. Clearly, what we need to do uis unleash our entire nuclear arsenal on the Gaza Strip. (Gaza is at war with Israel, and has yet to unconditionally surrender.)

      According to a mathematical theorem proven by Carl Sagan and four other scientists, this would freeze climate change in its tracks. See Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions
      R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, Carl Sagan We could not only save Israel, but have record cold winters, sea ice expanding beyond the Arctic, and no storms. What would be the downside?

  8. This is the sort of thing that only a gun-control fanatic could invent: such a rule, even if true, would just prevent rule-abiding attendees from defending themselves against the guy who simply reassembles his weapon after getting it into the convention. I mean, the derp is strong in these people.

    1. but but but RULES!!

      if they still don’t understand that “gun free zones” aren’t some magical force-field-protected area which no criminal will ever violate, do you think they’re going to get hip to something like this? or simple things like, “there aren’t very many mass-shootings at firing ranges”?

  9. The Gray Lady:

    All the Narrative that’s fit to print.

    “All within the Narrative, nothing outside the Narrative, nothing against the Narrative.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.