Last night on part of a news piece I caught there was a shooting of an officer in Quebec( I didn't catch enough to get exactly where it was) There was apparently a domestic dispute and the responding officer was shot by the man. Very horrible. The part that really got me was how the reporters went on about the gun he used and hardly mentioned the fact that the guy was a murderer.

Now weather they were liberal voters trying to stick another knife into the heart of the hunting sport or perhaps just misslead I don't know. The gun used was a "338 caliber" (did not say what round) and they went on about how powerful this gun was and how nobody in there right mind would ever need a gun of that size for only hunting purposes. They went on about how the caliber was "commonly used to take down elephants" and made it out to be like a Tamohawk missle by the end. I wish I would have thought to have gotten the stations info so as to send them a letter to inform them that either they are liers or very misinformed to the information they are trying to make fact. If they had done their homework and actually knew what investigative reporting was than they would know just how common that 338 rounds are for "actual hunting purposes" and that even if the countries that have elephant hunting would allow a caliber that small to be used, not too many of use would be fool enough to use them.

FYI: after the guy shot the cop he ran away but upon hearing later that the officer had died from the shot he turned himself in.



Just found a link

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/200.../20051216?hub=Canada

Idiots.

I used to be an editor and many reporters are ignorant. In many cases the editors are, as well, as you can see in this case where a ridiculous story was allowed to get through. That said, the "Letters" section in any newspaper is the third most read section after the sports and astrology columns (says a lot about the pontification by celebrity writers, doesn't it? ) and if you send in a letter with detailed information criticising the piece, or if a few people do, it should be published.

Best wishes and good hunting!

Until June of this year I was a reporter for a small daily newspaper in New Mexico.
Actually, my career covered several jobs in the newsroom, from reporter, to editor, to editor of a weekly group of newspapers, to small weekly owner, but not in that order.
Editors, by nature, have yet to learn how to pull their heads out of their collective butts. Just kidding, mehulkamdar!
I think the answer to your question is a combination of being liberal and misinformed. Many in the journalism industry tend to gravitate toward liberalism. But, I feel that reporting bad information also comes from simply being misinformed or uninformed. In the case NBhunter mentioned, the misinformed went all the way to the top.
It is human nature to make larger than life things which we do not understand and frighten us at the same time. In defense of reporters, many times they are required to go out into the field and get more than one story every day under the pressure of deadlines. I worked on stories in my 31-year career in which it took hours just to get one quote. Reporters may hear a police officer talking about a powerful cartridge used in the crime and take it to heart in their reporting.
Keep in mind too, that just because someone is a cop does not automatically qualify that individual as a firearms expert. A good example of this is the absolutely crappy reporting about the accuracy of the type of weapon and power of the caliber used to murder President Kennedy. I also remember another officer who talked of his father in law's elephant gun. I found out one day it was an 8mm/06. The officer very well could have been repeating what his father in law told him. Other officers I know have been very knowledgeable in the firearms arena.
I do not excuse a reporter's ignorance of firearms in reporting, nor do I condone it. In an ideal world reporters would have the time, and desire, to learn about firearms to report accurately in stories. Unfortunately, that is the ideal world and we just don't live in one!
In my reporting on crime stories I liked to report on the type of weapon used, if it was a firearm the caliber and even go so far as to use the balistics. Going so far as to say it was powerful enough to kill a whatever was going too far into the realm of editorializing. Unfortunately, several times that portion of the story would get cut by an editor who said the story had to be trimmed to make it fit in a specific hole on the newspaper page.
Thanks for letting me ramble. Tom Purdom

Both! This happens all of the time & just another reason to call the general media biased to the left. Ever notice that every time someone uses a gun to commit a crime they are called "gunman". If the guy uses a bat they don't call him a "batman". Same thing is going on w/ SUV invlolved accidents. The media seems to make the SUV into a crime committing entity?

Sadly it is all money related. If the reporting media attracts enough income from the amount of sensationalism it uses than that's the tool they use.The individuals using that tool get high grades and salaries and are prompted to go even further.

Are there really any penalties associated with stretching the truth,exaggerating or using criative writing within the law?

They may get an "ah gee that wasn't nice." roger

Actually guys you are shooting the messenger. The news report I read was quoting the Police Chief at the scene who described the rifle as an elephant gun. A reporter may not know better but could have checked with more knowledgeable sources. The Police Chief is simply as misinformed as the majority of urban LEO's.

Not withstanding they did want to make the story as spectacular as possible and as its been picked up Canada wide it looks like they succeeded.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the lady was murdered as a result of a Judge who allowed the shooter to have seasonal possession of a firearm while he was prohibited the rest of the (non hunting season) year. Doesn't make sense to me. If he wasn't safe to possess firearms for part of the year what line of reasoning says he would be for the other part?

I believe you'll find these (so called) reporters are not highly paid.....and for good reason.....

It doesn't surprise me that a police chief would know anything about firearms. The vast majority of street cops know little to nothing about firearms so no surprise there. The average reporter is a tv goof that takes little time to study anything they talk about.