Jeff Jarvis, always on the lookout for Big Truths, tries to turn the Empire State Building shooting into a teachable moment, the upshot being that guns are violent and the media really need to present an unvarnished view of reality — presumably in order to prep the rhetorical ground for yet another “necessary” and “sensible” gun control “discussion.”
— This being the same Jeff Jarvis who years ago noted that journalism shouldn’t be about facts, but instead about lessons — that is, the manipulation of facts into a pointed narrative that teaches readers whatever it is that needs teaching. According to the unbiased journalism professionals who would in no way ever allow their personal political positions affect their storytelling slant, presumably.
Jarvis, writing in the Huffington Post:
I say it is a good thing that we see a more unvarnished world. Perhaps then we’ll have a real debate about guns the way we were forced to face Vietnam through scenes of death on the evening news, as some of my defenders on Twitter pointed out. “Death by gunshot is graphic. Now uncontainable,” said the Guardian’s Charles Arthur (though the Guardian tried to contain it)
Because I’m not willing to believe Jarvis is interested in a world where even the police don’t have guns — and because it was the NYPD who was responsible for all the wounded at the shooting site — I’m tempted to believe Jarvis was busy crafting his otherwise disinterested defense of making gun gore more readily available to the public before he found out that the police were those responsible for the bulk of it, and having developed the argument, he just said fuck it, let’s put it out there anyway. And I don’t disagree with him: I thought it imperative that we be allowed to see Muslim extremists sawing off the heads of Americans, but most mainstream US news outlets disagreed. I thought American newspapers were wrong for censoring the Mohammed cartoons that provoked death threats from Islamists — defending their refusal to run them by subverting the very idea of the First Amendment. And yes — I agree with Jarvis here — I believe that US newspapers should not hesitate in showing crime scene photos if they believe those photos are an essential part of the news story on which they are reporting.
But then, that’s not what Jarvis really wants. What he wants is for an activist media, in a show of pretend disinterest and editorial neutrality, to begin using more than just verbal emotional manipulation of consumers. He wants an unvarnished world depicted and exposed — but only when such an exposure can then be used to push a particular political agenda. He wants to be able to propagandize, when necessary, with carefully chosen iconography disguised as objectivity.
Unfortunately, in his zeal to break out this latest bit of disingenuousness, Jarvis either didn’t wait for all the facts to come out, or else he just assumes that the fact that the police themselves were responsible for most of the bloodshed could be bracketed from his argument.
After all: journalism isn’t about reporting facts. It’s about crafting stories to teach people what to believe. The masses need lessons, not facts. Otherwise, they’re likely to draw the wrong conclusions. Or at least, conclusions that they might not otherwise, were they merely presented the story in a way that come predigested for them.
In this case we’re to be shown explicitly that bullets can cause damage to human tissue.
Which they did. Thankfully, too, in at least one case. The attacker was shot and killed with a gun, using bullets and velocity and energy displacement.
And splashing a picture of his dead body over the front pages of a newspaper might just act as a deterrent.
(thanks to Terry H)
“I am untrustworthy,” said Jeff Jarvis.
My conclusion for this story is that the police need a lot more training in the handling of firearms. Also, this punches a lot of holes in the notion that police are well-trained and should therefore be the only people allowed to have guns.
I have the feeling that the average concealed carry permit holder would have done much better under these circumstances.
Jeff Jarvis would not agree.
Call it a “reflexive narrative” in which leftists such as Jarvis just cannot help themselves.
For an example of the “reflexive narrative,” just read any article comparing a Democrat to a Republican. Democrats are always Democrats whereas the Republican is always “far right,” ultra conservative,” or “middle of the road.”
So I guess this means the shooter wasn’t Muslim then, eh? Otherwise he would probably be in favor of holding back certain details – the shooter’s name, race, religion, last words (“Allah Akbar!”) – that might lead the reader to the “wrong” conclusion.
But the Obama campaign describes Ms. Ciano as a “Republican Woman!” Right. There are liars; there are compulsive liars; and then there is the Obama campaign. If someone took the trouble to track the down the other women in the ad, they would probably find something similar. If you do that, please record your findings in the comments.
UPDATE: OK, I’ve broken through on this via Facebook. More of the women are fake “Republicans.” Will do update after lunch!
link
So if some office worker decides to kill a co-worker and then leaves with a gun, the cops should not shoot him if he refuses to drop his weapon?
If anything, the number of bystanders shot by the cops (it appears it was fragmenting bullets not aim, but still) is an issue that could be discussed. So the cops could be more effective at hitting their intended target.
What is Jarvis suggesting? We all go Amish (but without all the other bothersome Jesus stuff)? That would be fine, I suppose, but only if everyone did it.
Hey, the First Amendment isn’t a suicide pact. So, no Mohammed cartoons. Also, no photos of aborted fetuses to agitate the redneck terrorists in flyover wasteland.
American gunshot wounds on Americans? Now that has scent of Pulitzer photojournalism all over it.
Hey you wingers have your own propaganda too: Faux News, Glenn “Lonesome Rhodes” Beck, and Rush-to-the-Bank Limbaugh.
Also, Todd Akin.
I don’t see it as much a teachable moment as I do a barbed wire wrapped cudgel to slam in the face of all those “let the cops handle it they are professionals” anti-gun pinheads.
Maybe cranky and squid can work up a special edition.
“I don’t see it as much a teachable moment as I do a barbed wire wrapped cudgel to slam in the face of all those “let the cops handle it they are professionals” anti-gun pinheads.”
They’ll just claim that there would have been even MORE civilians hurt is any no cops had been packing. They’ll cite a study that seems to make it sound plausible.
I don’t care I still want to hit them in face.
16 rounds and hit 9 bystanders? How many rounds did Mr. Shooter, who’s piece jammed, get hit with?
By any measure that’s some cruddy shooting. Maybe they were afraid to drop their donuts until Mr. Shooter drew on them?
It’s looking like suicide-by-cop with a lot of collateral damage. Ambulance chasers are rubbing their hands in glee.
” How many rounds did Mr. Shooter, who’s piece jammed, get hit with?”
I believe one account I read claimed the perpetrator had 10 bullet wounds.
Thanks.
Oh, and that three bystanders were wounded by whole bullets, two of which were removed from their bodies and the third, I assume, left in the third bystander (but perhaps visualized as intact in x-ray or so).
They stopped shooting when they saw he didn’t have a cell phone.
At least nobody was able to buy a 40 Oz. soda while this was going on.
The cops were aiming at the walls, sidewalks, street, etc., etc. which the bullets were fragmenting off of?
Heh.
There was [is] a big concrete planter, approx. 2 & 1/2′ tall x 3′ dia. just behind the perpetrator from the angle of the policeman’s aim Ernst, and it was most likely off that object that the spray rebounded.
The cop was aiming at the planter?
The cops were aiming in the general direction of the perp, using MapQuest as their guide.
So “spray and pray” isn’t just for five year olds playing Big Buck Safari?
In the only video of the thing I’ve seen it’s damned hard to tell what either of the cops were aiming at outside assuming that they imagined they were aiming at the man holding the gun in front of them. One cop took a two-handed grip and appeared to be reasonably methodical about his fire. The other took to dancing around with a single handed grip on his firearm and his right hand bounded all about with his body.
One handed shooting cop probably hit all the bystanders. They were less than ten feet from the bad guy, fer cryin’ out loud. Or at least that’s what was reported, I’ve not seen a video.
OT: How’s your weather watch going, sdferr?
Leigh — NYPD are required to have an 11 lb trigger pull on their Glocks. The factory recommendation is 5 lbs. You can line up your target but by the time you’ve pulled that trigger all the way through under stress you’re likely to have a bit of a problem with precision.
Sure, that’s why they’re supposed to use a two-handed grip. Is a Glock (a 9mm, I’m guessing) what they all use as a service weapon?
Isaac’s actual locations have held very close to the projected centerline plotted at 5:00am this morning, which projection hasn’t changed much at all in the reports issued since. So fingers crossed, if it sticks to that line through Monday morning into afternoon, the storm center will pass by approx. 90 miles west of here at nearest approach. Under that supposition we’ll see a brief period of roughly 40 mph winds here, or less, with occasional higher gusts and shit-tons of rain. But none of that is dependable, of course, so we watch and plot the reports every three hours.
I hope it heads out to sea. 40 mph wind isn’t too bad. One hell of a lot better than 75-90+.
Stay safe.
Safe with these buggers is a decidedly a relative term. The 50 mph sustained wind probability here is fairly low, 10% or less. But that can’t account for the random tornado spawn. About which, very little could be done in any case. So.
We’ve been lucky this year to not have any tornados due to our hellaciously dry summer weather. We have had at least two very distructive straightline winds, though. The one I told you about and another that took place in town about eight miles from us.
Contrast this with the Arvada shooting, where all the rhetoric was ‘thank god no one else had a gun and tried to shoot back, innocent bystanders might have been hurt!!’
Liberals don’t even trust their own trained dogs.
So, the latest NHC report just came in and I’m now outside the infamous cone of probability, finally. Haven’t plotted the centerline yet but at a glance it looks to have shifted west a tad, which, good.
I had no idea about this. Insane. Totally insane.
Good.
Yeah. It’s currently shown approx 120 mi. from here at nearest approach. So further. On the other hand, that may mean landfall closer to Pensacola than heretofore, albeit still somewhat to the east, which is also good as such things go.
Throwing every shot away…for the greater good.
When guns are outlawed, only cops will shoot innocent bystanders.
sdferr, are you in the greater Tampa area? And if so, did you see you’ve dodged Hurricane Joe?
Pity, that.
Per some wag: “If the Democrats are sending Biden to Tampa, we’ll punch back twice as hard and send Biden to Charlotte!”
heh, yeah. At this point it’s looking to me as though the gops may have decided to postpone their first day a bit too early, since it’s apparent all that’ll befall Tampa is maybe some 30 mph wind and a heap of rain (the current track has them 160 mi from the center of nearest approach). But as they wish.
An 11 lb trigger pull? Holy crap. Given the Glock’s weird grip angle that makes it hard to aim anyway, add a trigger pull that would damn near require the use of a come-along and a big shot of adrenalin, and I guess I’m surprised they put rounds anywhere near the suspect.
So Biden’s shot to make epic douchebag history is thwarted.
Too bad.
I was looking forward to him making a rousing speech, outside, in a hurricane. Like Dan Rather, only without the gravitas.
11-lb trigger pull? Nope. 12-lb trigger pull…
No fucking wonder they can’t shoot straight!
R. Lee evidently didn’t give King Barry of Obama the right and proper reacharound.
An example must be made, for the encouragement of the others.
My great uncle left me his Stevens shotgun with the world’s heaviest triggers; first time I used it I thought I’d left the safety on. I emptied the gun, put it off safe, and hung it by the trigger on my finger. It wouldn’t fire, and the gun was over 8 lb. On the scale it clocked a 12 lb pull. I’m not surprised NYPD’s finest can’t hit a barn door. But maybe that’s what Nanny Bloomberg has in mind. Guns are dangerous, you know. Might hit somebody.
Does NYPD have to carry semi-autos? If I were a policewoman, I’d carry a revolver so I could get around that trigger restriction.
As far as I know, leigh, they can have a Glock, an S&W or a Sig, all with statutory crap trigger. Can’t see them letting one loose with a wheel gun with a decent trigger – the emphasis would seem to be on the suckitude of the trigger.
Heh.
I figured the cops who were on duty at the Empire State Building were clocking down to retirement and on easy duty. Midtown, not much going on, get to check out the wimmin, &c. All of a sudden they get pressed into actual duty and completely forgot protocol and started blasting.
I cannot figure out why someone would require such a heavy trigger pull. I understand not allowing a light pull, but a medium pull should be enough.
Perhaps they are trying to cover up for officer’s lousy gun handling skilz.
A 12 lb. trigger and you don’t “start blasting”. You mail off your permission slip and await further orders.
Touche, SW.
In the pantheon of bad ideas this is definately one of them.
Propaganda control and one way it’s done.
Speaking of bad ideas, this is another one.
From Pablo’s link…
No kidding. Seems that photographer should have invested in a nice digital backdrop.
I don’t understand this trend with trashing your wedding dress. Granted, I also don’t get spending thousands of dollars on a dress you’ll wear once, either. If you guys can rent a nice tuxedo, why don’t girls just rent the damned dress and spend that money on a nice second hand car, instead?
Same deal with destination weddings. Those are called honeymoons, folks.
Curiously, the “unvarnished view of reality” that Jeff Jarvis wants to promulgate includes the deadly consequences of disarming honest citizens. Gosh, I wonder why. /spit
Why do they keep calling these asswipes anarchists? The are protesting of the expansion of an already oppressive government. Call them what they are: the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party. They are fucking fascists.
Because they don’t want to call them “Occupy”.
Yes and then some. They are that, but they’re going to terrorize wayward Democrats into line too. Unless, you know, they get shot.
Or blow themselves up. After all these years, I still ♥ “work accidents.”
the deal with destination weddings is lots of time they’re cheaper than what’s expected if you do it in your village
I think expecting all of your friends and family to fly to far-flung destinations to watch you get hitched is crazy.
It’s almost as bad as the brides that have multiple themed bridal showers.