"go to the source"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

This is an idea related to me while I was in college. Not by a philosophy professor or a lecturer in the history department. I learned that along with a number of practical skills from the Godan at my dojo.

There have been opinions here discussing the edit made in the film Under the Gun. It is my feeling that if you film an interview, especially a slanted interview, you don't ask questions to which you don't want answers. If you do, and you get an answer that doesn't fit your narrative, you don't alter it or remove the answer. You can leave out both the question and the answer.

A number of sources have already made known their opinions of the edit as unprofessional/unethical. So back to the thread title I used. Since these main stream respected sources aren't buying the edit as representing good work in journalism for a documentary, neither am I. To paraphrase what someone here said, 'When the Washington Post has a problem with a pro-control piece, there IS a problem.'

I'm not a journalist nor a journalism professional. I have no training, no education nor experience in journalism. Feel free to dismiss my opinions along any others you don't like. Many pro-control folks resort to attacking the source of news or opinions which don't fit.

You can say to yourself that the film's producers and director 'went to the source' (VCDL) for opinions on the RKBA and answers to gun violence and crime but how valid is that when 'creative license' removes answers and the question remains? Suppose a pro-RKBA interviewer asked a pro-control source (maybe the VPC, the Brady tribe or DiFi) a question such as, "Without access to a handgun, how can physically smaller and weaker folks defend themselves from stronger assailants or armed criminals?" and the interview showed Josh Sugarmann or Hillary Clinton sitting in silence looking at the floor?

For me the film stands as another example of the kind of lies the pro-control folks will work to invent, spread and defend.

Want to change any minds? Get some real journalists with impeccable reputations to present some good ideas.



For now my opinion of Katie places her in the group that would write for the Weekly World News and such.

Want to influence me at all in that? Get some folks with reputations to explain it so that it doesn't sound like bullshit.
Start with this guy:

[EdwardBernays]

1. Sure

How about Stripes and the Israeli military?

They both say that the experts agree that removing guns will greatly decrease the number of suicides in America.

Which would means saving many 10s of thousands of lives.

So that's experts for ya.

http://www.stripes.com/news/experts-restricting-troops-access-to-firearms-is-necessary-to-reduce-rate-of-suicides-1.199216

So now that you know what the experts say I'll be patiently waiting for your excuses for why those experts don't matter.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. My purpose in this thread is...

...highlighting that certain pro-control elements will misrepresent to further their cause. They leave out things as Katie and Michael Moore have done or they just change the subject but thanks for your help here in demonstrating that last one.

[pablo_marmol]

5. ".......but thanks for your help in demonstrating that last one."

And our friend purposefully ignores the fact that there is actually no broad consensus of expert opinion that fewer gus = fewer suicides. So there's that as well.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. He and I agree on a number progressive ideas

Gun policy is not one of them and I'm not really interested in making this thread a host for another topic of back and forth over suicides and 'my expert says' and 'my expert is better than yours' or 'why won't you address this tangential mosquito of concern that's hitching a ride on that pterodactyl your talking about?'

He's quite capable of starting a thread on the topic. I'd love to read it and participate but this particular circus needs only the one ring.

My thread on thanks including pro-control folks was quite sincere. Without any ideas for meaningful control this discussion would die. I know there's Democrats that would prefer to put it to a popular vote and just pass a law but tyranny over rights is not more desirable simply because the tyrant is a majority rather than a small group or individual.

thanks for the feedback

[pablo_marmol]

10. First paragraph ----- understood. And.......

........permit me to flaunt my ignorance, but who is the gentleman in the photo? Meant to ask earlier. (he does look familiar - can't place)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Joe Galloway

Need I say more?
Permit me to flaunt my age.

[jonno99]

13. 'We Were Soldiers' did a good job of portraying the humanity of all involved - how

the war not only affected the soldiers - but the families too. One of my favorites.

Wouldn't it be great if all of our media had the moral courage of Mr. Galloway...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. If I could be half the man that Joe is...

...I'd feel like I had made a difference in the world.


Here's an article by Joe on Sam Wilson: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_010704,00.html


The human part of soldiering and its effect on families is a heavy price. Julie Moore (RIP) was an extraordinary person. I very much enjoyed Sam Elliot's portrayal of CSM Plumley. Barry Pepper did a great job as well.

[jonno99]

15. "half the man"? I'd settle for a quarter.

I agree with your assessment of S. Elliot's portrayal of the CSM. "any one a you calls me grampa - I'll kill you." And you believed him!

And thank you for the link to the Sam Wilson article - wouldn't it be great to train under him?

Would that we spent more time discussing/emulating the lives of men and women like these folks - and less on the antics of the Kanye's & Kardashians.

But then, what do we know? We're just grumpy old-timers.

Sigh...

[Puha Ekapi]

3. Aaaannnndddd...

Ed leaps into his trusty Dodge and speeds away...

[gejohnston]

4. post hoc ergo propter hoc

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
If Israel in fact changed that policy, they also did a number of other things. For example, they worked to remove the stigma of getting help, which exists in every military. Given recent photos of street scenes of Israel, I doubt the weapons policy has actually changed.

and there was no expert cited in the article. Dr. Miller, I missed his specialty, works for an economist named David Hemenway, who writes shill studies, in a department funded by the Joyce Foundation. In Robert Kennedy Jr.'s coined term, he is probably a biostitute. He is not an expert in the field outside of writing "studies" that, like Hemenway's, never seem to find their way in a peer review publication. He might be an expert internist, but suicide has nothing to do with internal medicine.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/faculty-and-staff/miller-matthew/

BTW, IDF suicides doubled in 2014.
http://disastermilitarymedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40696-015-0007-y

[pablo_marmol]

7. Our friend ignores evidence that runs counter to his faith-based beliefs.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[pablo_marmol]

6. Agree with the vast majority of what you've shared.......

.....but need to take some issue with this:

You can say to yourself that the film's producers and director 'went to the source' (VCDL) for opinions on the RKBA and answers to gun violence and crime but how valid is that when 'creative license' removes answers and the question remains?

The actual question really didn't even remain, because it was modified to hide Couric's ignorance w/regard to gun sales via federally licensed dealers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. If I were the interviewee, I would have been insulted by...

...the phrase 'I already know your answer'. I believe that was edited out as well.

So the question(s) were edited, granted. I have no interest viewing what the MSM have already validated as slanted and unprofessional work. The producers and director had a message with a narrative. They worked to record something that furthers their position. I just don't care about them any more than I care about the remaining birthers.

Here's something about this kind of work and to whom it is attributable: "...he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us." Google that.

Pulling some lies out of one's ass and calling it a documentary is an attack.

[pablo_marmol]

11. "Google that."

Ha! I did --- and very important point. Lies are best transported riding in a saddle constructed of some truth.

And very true this:

Pulling some lies out of one's ass and calling it a documentary is an attack.