Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Washington Post GSW article

  1. #21
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SF Bay Ahea
    “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

    That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.”

    ― Michael Crichton

  2. #22
    Site Supporter Borderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Camano Island WA.
    Quote Originally Posted by paherne View Post
    “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

    That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.”

    ― Michael Crichton
    The WaPo certainly lowered my expectations with that AR-15 BS. I'm going to check my sub and decline to renew. They need to do better.
    In the P-F basket of deplorables.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter ccmdfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southeastern NC
    I lost most if not all respect for major news organizations reporting of firearms facts back when I was either a young teenager or older child.

    One of the night time news magazine show like dateline, 20/20, Etc did a piece on pellet guns because there had been a few high-profile injuries and death from them. Their so-called Firearms expert took a pellet gun out to the range and chronographed it shooting a pellet. He then took a 2 in 38 Special almost certainly loaded with heavy bullets and shot it and chronographed it.

    The big takeaway message:" pellet guns are more deadly than 38 specials because they shoot faster!"

  4. #24
    The day their AR15 GSW article was published I sent an email to WAPO and Cc'd all the reporters and editors involved with the article, pointing out several errors, and attached a copy of Fackler's "Wounding Effects of Military Rifle Bullets" paper. I told them, "It's a 'splash' effect, not a 'blast' effect", and provided a link to John Ervin's (Brassfetcher) video of M855 in gelatin showing the temporary cavity (the "splash" created in water-filled soft tissues when the bullet hits at 2000 mph) and fragmentation as the wounding mechanisms. A day and a half later I received the following pathetic email response from one of the editors, Ann Gerhart:

    As part of our reporting for this story, we scrutinized nearly 100 autopsy reports from five mass killings to analyze the patterns of deadly wounds from rounds fired from AR-15-style rifles. We consulted trauma surgeons who have operated on victims shot with high-velocity rounds, ballistics experts and a medical examiner. We then drew on court testimony from medical examiners and autopsy records to create the depictions in The Blast Effect, which includes animations of fragmentation, energy dispersal creating the temporary cavity and bullet tumble.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter Borderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Camano Island WA.
    I just cancelled my sub a few days ago. They wanted to know why so I checked the box content.

    If they truly are curious I suspect they will email me. They have my address. I don't think they care.

    They've really been sliding off the professional journalism charts lately. I can't trust anything they publish anymore.
    Last edited by Borderland; 04-08-2023 at 12:11 PM.
    In the P-F basket of deplorables.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Dodson View Post
    The day their AR15 GSW article was published I sent an email to WAPO and Cc'd all the reporters and editors involved with the article, pointing out several errors, and attached a copy of Fackler's "Wounding Effects of Military Rifle Bullets" paper. I told them, "It's a 'splash' effect, not a 'blast' effect", and provided a link to John Ervin's (Brassfetcher) video of M855 in gelatin showing the temporary cavity (the "splash" created in water-filled soft tissues when the bullet hits at 2000 mph) and fragmentation as the wounding mechanisms. A day and a half later I received the following pathetic email response from one of the editors, Ann Gerhart:

    As part of our reporting for this story, we scrutinized nearly 100 autopsy reports from five mass killings to analyze the patterns of deadly wounds from rounds fired from AR-15-style rifles. We consulted trauma surgeons who have operated on victims shot with high-velocity rounds, ballistics experts and a medical examiner. We then drew on court testimony from medical examiners and autopsy records to create the depictions in The Blast Effect, which includes animations of fragmentation, energy dispersal creating the temporary cavity and bullet tumble.
    Thank you for trying to educate them, Shawn. Your wisdom probably fell on 'deaf ears' which seems to be a 'default' these days for the media: ''We'll bring our own facts to the argument so as not to let reality interfere with the desired narrative, thank you very much.''

    Extrapolating from the content of her response, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if their ''ballistics experts'' were the Courtneys.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  7. #27
    WA PO did report that at least one of the surgeons they consulted is a gun control activist, which means they're parroting someone's agenda instead of reporting the truth.

  8. #28
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Correcting them is a good thing in and of itself but not a key point in gun rights. It makes no difference in a cultural war about whether civilians should have access to the weapons. I know some folks here think that scoring technical points on this or that will change this or that. Are folks trying to make the case that an empirically demonstrated deadly weapon should be culturally acceptable to those opposed to them because the description of ballistic efforts is not what is presented by WAPO? How will that change the debate? Is similar to my cloud yelling about the MSR term as an attempt to make folks think the AR is a really a sporting toy. Please don't take our toys.

    Their constitutional protection is based (or should be) on their lethality for useful SD, defense against tyranny and the unlikely foreign invasion or internal insurrection by anti democratic (Small d) folks.

    Saying they are less efficacious than Uncle Dicks Fudd Blaster - well, we ain't seeing Uncle Dick in the middle school (hopefully never).

    The antis are trying for vivid instances that will tickle emotional decision making. On the surface, the question of why should anyone have such a gun isn't answered by how you shoot jello. If I have to defend my owning the guns it is not that they are toys but the average citizen needs the ability to engage in intense SD (OH, NO - five is enough! Never need more than 3 or a reload), tyranny - well, the resurgence of specific targeted bigotry is a step to tyranny as we see elsewhere, nuts trying to take over the government - well - we will have various opinions of recent history. If you don't buy having the guns to fight intensely, there's no reason for them, given their risks to societal misuse. Sport is not an answer.

    AWBs will continue in blue and purple states and reds (if we have moral panics such as reportedly almost turned the Orange one into a banner - turned by narcissistic self interest). Clarence will save us in 12 months, some 'experts' say. I'm waiting on that. Their record on the CCIA is just legal weeds and stink eye threats. I hope I am wrong. Saw a commentator today who said, the Court changes (old men die) and expect Heller and rest to be gone in a flash as stare decisis fell for the Glory of the GOP crotch police.
    Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Outside the Moderate Damage Radius
    It is good that WaPo chose NOT to use peer reviewed articles from medical journals. It is an obvious propaganda piece with no scientific credibility. It would have been more shockingly effective had they used open source material from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology or the Journal of Trauma.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •