Was it extra dangerous because it was a Glock pistol and not Sig Sauer? Would it have been less an issue if it was .380 Auto or .45 ACP instead of 9mm?
"Nothing to See Here, Just a GOP Politician…
leaving their silver Toyota Corolla with gas in the tank parked illegally
wearing a tailored business suit and carrying a leather briefcase while shoplifting
drinking a cold Budweiser beer in an aluminum can in a school parking lot
Was it extra dangerous because it was a Glock pistol and not Sig Sauer? Would it have been less an issue if it was .380 Auto or .45 ACP instead of 9mm?
Lemmy when every minor detail isn’t contained within the headline: The StAtE oF MoDeRn JoUrNaLiSm Is AbYsMaL!!!1!
Lemmy when the headline contains relevant detail: WhY ArE ThEsE JoUrNaLiStS bEiNg So SpEcIfIc?!?1?
If that’s what you meant you would have said that. But you didn’t. You’re clearly upset that vanity fair had the nerve to mention the specific gun. Otherwise you wouldn’t have praddled off three other examples to highlight your point. Nice attempt at saving face though.
Not worried about saving face, my reply was more a rebuttal to yours re: “Lemmy when every minor detail isn’t included” etc. I would think the perpetrator’s name would be more important than the caliber and manufacturer of the firearm; e.g. “GOP Politician Don Wilson Leaves a Loaded Pistol in the Bathroom” imparts more key information than the one used - and even the fact is was loaded isn’t surprising since it being left in the bathroom implies it is used for self-defense and would likely be loaded. There is the possibility that it was some prop used for demonstration that was accidentally left there which would (hopefully) be unloaded so it’s not a strictly extraneous detail to include so that alone I don’t take issue with.
My issue is just specifying it was Glock and 9mm in the headline was simply because of the public’s familiarity with the words but not what they mean necessarily [the most popular handgun in the most popular caliber] and was intended to make the scenario sound even more scary. I used the three examples to point out that they would likely report the other scenarios as simply ‘left vehicle parked illegally’, omit the clothing and briefcase composition regarding the shoplifting, and not specify the brand of beer or its unsurprising temperature and form factor in the parking lot drinking.
Sure, get specific in the body to accurately describe the facts, but the headline isn’t meaningfully changed by omitting those points so I don’t think they were needed.
Yes, as I originally said, everyone on Lemmy thinks they know how to do journalist’s jobs better than they do and it’s beyond old at this point. I’m just going to go ahead and block you now as your lengthy off-topic complaints about journalistic practices have added nothing relevant to the discussion of the actual story.
I’m glad we were able to discuss this productively and that our comments were voted on based on their quality and not level of agreement.
Surely if we all continue to make brash emotional responses to the concerns around firearm safety instead of effective ones we’ll get this menace solved any day now.
Journalism isn’t some altruistic job, what gets clicks is what matters. A politician leaving a loaded glock 9mm gets clicks, Don wilson leaving a pistol in a bathroom means nothing to me so I won’t care and won’t click. As long as the content in the article is good I just don’t think it’s important what the headline is
Was it extra dangerous because it was a Glock pistol and not Sig Sauer? Would it have been less an issue if it was .380 Auto or .45 ACP instead of 9mm?
"Nothing to See Here, Just a GOP Politician…
Lemmy when every minor detail isn’t contained within the headline:
The StAtE oF MoDeRn JoUrNaLiSm Is AbYsMaL!!!1!
Lemmy when the headline contains relevant detail:
WhY ArE ThEsE JoUrNaLiStS bEiNg So SpEcIfIc?!?1?
I just don’t feel like the make and caliber of the pistol was more pertinent than the name of the politician to highlight in the headline.
If that’s what you meant you would have said that. But you didn’t. You’re clearly upset that vanity fair had the nerve to mention the specific gun. Otherwise you wouldn’t have praddled off three other examples to highlight your point. Nice attempt at saving face though.
Not worried about saving face, my reply was more a rebuttal to yours re: “Lemmy when every minor detail isn’t included” etc. I would think the perpetrator’s name would be more important than the caliber and manufacturer of the firearm; e.g. “GOP Politician Don Wilson Leaves a Loaded Pistol in the Bathroom” imparts more key information than the one used - and even the fact is was loaded isn’t surprising since it being left in the bathroom implies it is used for self-defense and would likely be loaded. There is the possibility that it was some prop used for demonstration that was accidentally left there which would (hopefully) be unloaded so it’s not a strictly extraneous detail to include so that alone I don’t take issue with.
My issue is just specifying it was Glock and 9mm in the headline was simply because of the public’s familiarity with the words but not what they mean necessarily [the most popular handgun in the most popular caliber] and was intended to make the scenario sound even more scary. I used the three examples to point out that they would likely report the other scenarios as simply ‘left vehicle parked illegally’, omit the clothing and briefcase composition regarding the shoplifting, and not specify the brand of beer or its unsurprising temperature and form factor in the parking lot drinking.
Sure, get specific in the body to accurately describe the facts, but the headline isn’t meaningfully changed by omitting those points so I don’t think they were needed.
Yes, as I originally said, everyone on Lemmy thinks they know how to do journalist’s jobs better than they do and it’s beyond old at this point. I’m just going to go ahead and block you now as your lengthy off-topic complaints about journalistic practices have added nothing relevant to the discussion of the actual story.
I’m glad we were able to discuss this productively and that our comments were voted on based on their quality and not level of agreement.
Surely if we all continue to make brash emotional responses to the concerns around firearm safety instead of effective ones we’ll get this menace solved any day now.
Journalism isn’t some altruistic job, what gets clicks is what matters. A politician leaving a loaded glock 9mm gets clicks, Don wilson leaving a pistol in a bathroom means nothing to me so I won’t care and won’t click. As long as the content in the article is good I just don’t think it’s important what the headline is