Nolte: Last Week’s Fake News Epidemic Led by CNN, Politico, New York Times

[dvdjs]

“Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future.”

That exact quote in the the ABC article.

So is this:

At the end of the day, we believe it is good sense to follow consumer demand and to adjust as market dynamics change," Dennis Veilleux, president and CEO of Colt, said in a statement. “Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world.”

And this:

Colt will continue to make weapons, including rifles, for the military and law enforcement. It will also continue to produce its signature 1911s and revolvers.

Are you really suggesting that “too long, too wordy” makes news fake?

 

[gam197]

Are you really suggesting that “too long, too wordy” makes news fake?

The first sentence by line set the tone

Venerable gun manufacturer Colt says it will stop producing the AR-15, among other rifles, for the consumer market in the wake of many recent mass shootings in which suspects used the weapon.

It took a 76 word statement and made it into a 600+ word news article. Yes it did change/affect the original statement.

The fundamental question are:

• does the reporting lack “a great deal of true facts”, or are nits picked as a vehicle to attempt to undermine an article?
• is the motive of those “who brought it to the attention of the general public” doing do to improve the fidelity of the report or undermine it?
• is the broader motive to undermine confidence in information gathering and reporting institutions in an effort to try to put partisan cant on equal footing with serious reporting?

I would say according to your criteria it does.

 

[dvdjs]

The first sentence by line set the tone

I think that ABC did a proper job in contextualizing the story. In the absence of the context, there business decision is not newsworthy art all. The article was faithful to the facts and quoted from Colt at length with fidelity to their announcement.

I don’t see how this lines up at all with the fundamental questions that I asked. Perhaps you could be clearer about that. I think that the real problem here is the idea that one can snip the merest bit from a small story and try to make that the story with the effect of undermining legitimate reporting.

 

[gam197]

They did not need to contextualize the story. There was nothing to explain. It was a simple 2 line statement from a gun manufacturer’s president on temporarily stopping production.

Nothing more, no need to speculate.

 

[Theo520]

Breitbart slants right but it never contended that it was a middle of road news source.

I’d have no problem if the Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS came out and said sure we slant left.

Then it’s fair play.

slanting their focus and opinion pieces is different than fake news

 

[dvdjs]

They did not need to contextualize the story.

You make wish that they did not contextualize the story. That does not eliminate the obvious context that makes the item newsworthy. There was nothing fake. What is the aim of calling fake? That is what the fundamental questions address.