Reuters highlights a great little tale filled with anti-gun bias and bad reporting, all topped with an extremely misleading photo that presents a wonderful example of biased "reporting" at its worst. The story is about a German man who was "crowded out of his home" by his gun collection but the photo is of a gun store display in America. What the two have to do with each other is anybody's guess. But then we find out the man wasn't crowded out by his gun collection after all. Just a little thought put to the Reuters tale reveals that the whole thing is bunk.
BERLIN (Reuters) - A German man was such an avid collector of weapons and other paraphernalia that he ran out of space at home and had to sleep in a hotel, neighbors said following the 71-year-old's death... Executors found an arsenal of weaponry and assorted goods at the man's two-story home in the western city of Aachen...
Wow, it must have been hundreds and hundreds of guns that caused this man to flee from his two-story home to a hotel, right?
Well, not really.
Turns out he only had 71 guns. That would hardly fill up a two-story house!
"There were 71 guns -- one for each year of his life," said police spokesman Paul Kemen. "He also had 41 cases of ammunition and five walking sticks fitted with retractable blades."
Wait a minute. 71 guns filled up his whole two-story house? Now, it isn't until the fourth paragraph that we find out it wasn't all those guns that forced him out of his home. Apparently the man was a pack rat and "collected everything."
Heiner Hautermans, a reporter at the Aachener Nachrichten paper, said neighbors related how the man, who lived alone, collected everything from clothing to garden tools and watches.
"The house was stuffed to the rafters," he said. "By the end, the neighbors said he had to sleep in a hotel sometimes because there was no more room."
So, why did Reuters have to focus on the guns in that first paragraph as an "arsenal" that "crowded him out" of his house? Isn’t the real story far less about the guns and more about the fact that he just had a house stuffed with tons of junk, the 71 guns being but a small part of that collection?
But, wait. Along with the anti-gun bias, Reuters also threw in a misleading picture... at no extra cost to the reader.
The photo is of a gun store display from the United States. So, what does a gun store in the U.S. have to do with a German guy who had a few guns around the house? Even worse, here is the caption on the Reuters photo:
A customer browses for guns at the Cabela's store in Fort Worth, Texas March 7, 2008.
And there we have it. Undue focus on guns, a misleading story, and an accompanying photo that has absolutely zip to do with the story.
Great job, Reuters!
(h/t Ed Morrissey)
(Photo credit: REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Warner. Are you sure that..
April 7, 2008 - 12:07 ET by Gary HallWarner. Are you sure that.. that this was a Reuter's story, and not comments from Hillary Clinton in a campaign speech? (;~> gh
Reuters, AP: two sides of
April 7, 2008 - 12:10 ET by mattmReuters, AP: two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Great job Warner...
April 7, 2008 - 12:15 ET by jpatchTeachers should be showing this in their classrooms - a perfect example of dishonest, ideologically-driven fiction, propagated under the guise of "journalism".
But Warner...I've heard this said before on here, and I'll second the notion: we need a scoreboard of sorts. We need to be able to "rate" this "instance" of media bias on a scale, and we need to mark it the "5,234th incident of liberal media bias" or something of the like.
We also should be able to rate each others posts as well, in my opinion.
If they bothered posting a
April 7, 2008 - 12:20 ET by KillgraveIf they bothered posting a picture that was actually relevent, you probably wouldn't be able to see the firearms, since they were obviously buried under piles of trash.
But I see the "journalist" trying to make a desperate equation:
gun collector = mentally ill
The Soviets got a lot of mileage by branding political opponents of mental illness. Good job, Reuters. Pravda would be proud.
So, why did Reuters have to
April 7, 2008 - 12:30 ET by motherbeltSo, why did Reuters have to focus on the guns in that first paragraph as an "arsenal" that "crowded him out" of his house?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
"That's a rhetorical
April 7, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Warner Todd HustonI guess that it is, unfortunately.
This is really a...
April 7, 2008 - 12:36 ET by ForeverOnTheRightperson with obsesive compulsive disorder of collecting too much stuff, not about guns. Reuters is certainly being misleading in the first paragraph, which is the paragraph that most people read and not go to far beyound that. The more I hear about this dishonesty in journalism the more I am convinced that these news services are for liberals that are closed minded to the truth, but probably consider themselfves "open minded".
WTH Strikes Again
April 7, 2008 - 12:42 ET by LeonGo Warner!
Again you really get to the bottom of the issues that matter.
1) They used a picture of guns in a story about guns! Oh my! That's biased reporting at its worst? How so? Are all pictures in all news stories always DIRECTLY related to the story (i.e. containing a direct picture of the subject of the story?) I don't think so. Journalists routinely use indirectly related photos in their stories.
2) Reuters made it seem like it was just the guns but it was other stuff too that forced this guy to move! Oh my! Who cares?
Are you actually claiming that Reuters was trying to make guns seem bad b/c some pack rat collected so many he had no space left in his house?
Yeah that makes perfect sense. The anti-gun lobby routinely cites the dangers of overcollecting guns when pushing for gun control! haha.
Again, no substance, no value. Shocker.
*** BETTER CLASS OF TROLL NEEDED ***
April 7, 2008 - 12:51 ET by LionKingThe article title suggests that a man is forced out of his home because of his own arsenal. They include a picture of a GUN SHOP. Are you really that daft that you cannot see how that picture is misleading? Actually, the whole article is nonsense and based on a biases premise that guns are bad.
nice headline LK
April 7, 2008 - 13:17 ET by wizardjrI got a good chuckle from your headline LionKing. Thanks.
If I'm not mistaken
April 7, 2008 - 13:53 ET by sarcasmoThe original troll-taunt came from FL's own Blonde (but I could easily be mistaken if this is another senior moment!)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
give Blonde the credit
April 8, 2008 - 15:12 ET by LionKingBy no means am I trying to claim the phrase as mine, but, it certainly was suitable in this case.
Warner, don't you dare
April 7, 2008 - 13:47 ET by NL207Warner, don't you dare reply to this Neanderthal. It just encourages him.
Reuters used a photo that was entirely unrelated to the story, that is, not connected in any way weith either the subject or his property. This is poor journalism.
Reuters made a distorted report. They overtly blamed this gun collection for occuppying the entire space of the subject's home when in fact the subject himself, and inverterate pack rat, had filled his home with all sorts of personal property, the vast majority of which was not guns. Instead of giving us a story about a Gernman Collier brother, we get a story about evil guns. This isn't journalism, it is propaganda.
I'd hate to see you banned, Leon. You serve a most useful purpose here. You are a prime example of liberal ignorance, stupidity, and truculence. You are a beacon illuminating all that is weakminded and intellectually bankrupt in the left. Keep up the good work!
NL 1) Entirely
April 7, 2008 - 16:35 ET by LeonNL
1) Entirely unrelated? The story was about lots of guns, they showed a picture with lots of guns. Did they claim that these were THE guns. No. Does every picture newsbusters uses with their articles deal directly with the story? No. I see nothing wrong with showing a picture of unrelated guns in a story about guns.
2) As far as I can tell from the article, the guns were his most major possession and supplemented them with a lot of other crap. Which Reuters clearly talked about in the article. His collection of guns is the interesting part of the story. If he had just had a bunch of garbage, it would have been boring. Again, what is Reuters supposed attack on guns here? Be careful or they could take over your house? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
3) Banned? For what? Pointing out WTH's lack of importance to the world of journalism?
1. Entirely unrelated. (a)
April 7, 2008 - 16:55 ET by NL2071. Entirely unrelated. (a) The gun store photo in question is not even identified as a business in Germany. (b) None of the guns pictured were owned by the subject. (c) There are not 71 guns in the picture. In fact, the number there are not even enumerated. (d) None of the models of guns displayed are identified as the same as the models owned by the subject. The picture might as well be that of a used car lot.
2. "As far as I can tell from the article the guns were his most major possession" Exactly the misimpression Reuters intended to convey. I will put this in perspective for you. A fireproof gunsafe that will hold 100 guns occupies all of 12 square feet of space. If this is a majority of his living space as you suppose, then his house must be less than 50 square feet. The absurdity of your argument should be obvious even to you.
The Collyer brothers were considered an interesting story in their day and they possesed no guns. Why would you suppose the firearms were the only point of interest?
3. Banned? Yes, banned. You are slowly degenerating into provacative posts w/o redeeming content. This has been the exit "strategy" of a number of libs before you.
"The absurdity of your
April 7, 2008 - 17:19 ET by Warner Todd HustonNow THAT was funny.
Let me sum up his reply for you:
"Nu-uh! You big poopie head."
Though my assumption might assume of him far too much intelligence and maturity, I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Oopsie...
April 7, 2008 - 17:43 ET by Warner Todd HustonWas I being snarky again.
Dang it!
NL207...I would have posted
April 7, 2008 - 18:27 ET by JerNL207...I would have posted a little earlier, but I've been engrossed in the Collyer brothers story. Thanks for linking it.
Minor quibble: The brothers did possess firearms. At the end of the Homer Collyer Found Dead section of the article, we are informed that "The ongoing search turned up a further assortment of guns and ammunition."
While it's true that 71 guns could be stored within a relatively small space, I suspect this man suffered from a compulsive hoarding disorder similar to that of the Collyers. Neatness and an organized living environment are generally not their strong suits. The guns and boxes of ammo were probably scattered throughout the house, and thus more prominent than if stored in a gun safe.
That said, Reuters could have done a better job in presenting this story.
Jer
So, this ISN'T bias??
April 7, 2008 - 13:37 ET by sarcasmo1. The picture isn't the main problem with this story, it's just part of the pattern of antigun bigotry and bias we've exposed. This (peaceful, appparently) packrat-person owned a few dozen guns along with a bunch of other stuff. Oh, the horror!!
2. There's massive antigun bigotry and bias in a media story, and NewsBusters has the temerity to tell the truth about it, upsetting an antigun lefty! Oh my! Who cares?
And yes, Reuters is using their considerable bias to try to make guns seem somehow "bad," when they're merely tools. (Clearly, guns aren't the only tools I'm seeing today.) The bigoted and ignorant grab-lobby routinely tries to limit the number of guns "free" individuals can buy in a specific period, so yes, an antigun whine about a few dozen guns in paragraph 1(!) makes perfect sense in what should just be an unbiased story about yet-another packrat.
Substantial proof of bias and antigun bigotry in the media again by Warner (and BTW, where's good ol' Howard N.?). No shocker. And it's also no shocker that your post was not only easy to answer, but easy for me to parody at the same time... Your panties are certainly in a knot regarding Warner, though.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc: They might not be
April 7, 2008 - 18:03 ET by BDSarc:
They might not be the most egregious portion, but the poster is correct, using an unrelated photo to a story is considered unethical as far as photo journalism is concerned.
I believe that is the crux.
I have a renewed respect....
April 7, 2008 - 18:12 ET by ontheright...for your "open minded-ness"...Thank you!
Hey Neon Leon...
April 7, 2008 - 17:27 ET by ontheright...you've out done yourself on this one. I don't typically reply to your tripe, but this was such elegant liberal backwash that I had to respond....I paraphrase, as I don't have time to properly credit, when I'm addressing a known loon.
1) I concede, you are right, when Reuters/AP (other liberal rag) attributes photos, they typically don't jive very well with the story...good point/catch.
1a)Man crowded out of house due to gun collection, then showing picture of gun store half way around the globe is not even close to being indirectly related; unless of course the man owned the gun store...
2) I learned, when I started writing, a few years ago (comic relief for my own benefit) that one typically leads-in with a relevent headline; So... if it were little 'ol me writing this dime a dozen story, it might start something like this; "Elderly man with obsessive compulsive disorder fills 2-story home" - what did he fill it with??? - oh, that's right...add picture of gun store...how silly of me; then everyone know's what he filled it with.....
Doesn't take much logic, or IQ for that matter, to see/know/understand the the troll under the bridge...
To me, the weapons are
April 7, 2008 - 12:55 ET by balboaTo me, the weapons are highlighted because they're the most alarming/intriguing part of the story.
you're alarmed?
April 7, 2008 - 13:21 ET by wizardjrA guy has guns in his house and you're alarmed? It must be tough to be you, so many things to be scared of.
Oh get over yourself. Who
April 7, 2008 - 13:30 ET by balboaOh get over yourself. Who said I'm scared? It wasn't just "guns," it was 71 guns, which is just a skosh out of the norm. Sorry.
Bal, You're 100%
April 7, 2008 - 16:36 ET by LeonBal,
You're 100% correct.
Just another example of our man Warner scrounging for work.
71 guns is nothing...
April 7, 2008 - 17:31 ET by ontheright... I have double that number and use every single one of them, along with every qualified member of my family.
Come out of the shadows, it's ok. I would, without hesitation protect you and your rights, with my "skosh out of the norm number of guns" if it came down to it...might even let you borrow a gun, if the situation warranted.
On a side note; who are you to determine what is the "norm"?
I don't determine the norm.
April 7, 2008 - 17:54 ET by balboaI don't determine the norm. But I don't think owning 71-142 is the norm.
You must not be...
April 7, 2008 - 18:01 ET by ontheright...a hunter or enthusiast. Not a problem, just don't tell me what the "norm" is...
You honestly think that
April 7, 2008 - 18:08 ET by balboaYou honestly think that 71-142 guns is a normal number for an average American to have? REALLY?
I would debate further....
April 7, 2008 - 18:19 ET by ontheright...however, I find it very difficultto to justify my particular hobby/collection habits; do you find it normal for a an American to have a collection of 20-50 cars? Do you find it normal for an American to have a collection of 20-50 motorcycles? Do you find it normal for an American to have a collection of 20-50 paintings?
Now, you connect the REAL dots you want to talk about here...
If you're a gun collector,
April 7, 2008 - 18:26 ET by balboaIf you're a gun collector, then a bunch of guns is not unusual. It is unusual, and therefore worth highlighting -- say in an article -- if your collection of 71 guns is part of a larger collection of junk so large that you have no room to sleep. That's all I'm saying.
You've descended....
April 7, 2008 - 18:32 ET by ontheright....into a circular argument....if the 71 guns is NOT the story, why bother debating further? The story lead-in/mis-lead was the 71 guns, not the true basis for the story - the old man was disturbed and collected everything; so much so he pushed himself out of his own home. Not because of the 71 guns he owned, but because of ALL OF THE COMBINED CRAP he collected/stored/kept...etc.
Eh. This whole thing is
April 7, 2008 - 18:40 ET by balboaEh. This whole thing is going nowhere. :-)
It was not solid execution by Reuters, what with the gun shop photo.
Just an FYI...
April 7, 2008 - 18:22 ET by ontheright...the crux of my comment is the number of "items" in a collection....it could have been adjusted up or down....however, a gun is no different from a work of art...unless of course I want to shoot a pheasant...and that is pheasant...not peasant...lol.
I see what you're saying re:
April 7, 2008 - 18:27 ET by balboaI see what you're saying re: collections.
Gee, Bal, I thought this was a free country.
April 7, 2008 - 18:46 ET by R D HelmDo you think it normal for someone to own 10,000,000,000 toothpicks?
So, what if they do?
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Who said it isn't a free
April 7, 2008 - 19:08 ET by balboaWho said it isn't a free country? What are you talking about?
Bal,
April 7, 2008 - 19:23 ET by R D HelmWell, you seem to have a problem with the number if guns some people might choose to own.
What difference does it make if it is one or several dozen?
Do you really believe the government should step in and limit the number of guns (a legal product) that people should be allowed to own?
If so, should the government have the authority to tell people how many toothpicks they are allowed to own? Pairs of shoes? Glasses? Golf clubs?
Should the government determine how many beers can be in one's fridge at any given time? How many cars they are allowed to have? How many pizzas one can order at one time?
Where does it end?
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
I don't have "a problem"
April 7, 2008 - 19:41 ET by balboaI don't have "a problem" with the number of guns. I was pointing out how 71 guns is a lot, which is why it's prominent in the story.
I never said or implied anything about limits, toothpicks, or numbers of beers.
Pizza Hut
April 7, 2008 - 20:09 ET by shawn228"How many pizzas one can order at one time? '
I think Pizza hut might have a problem with someone ordering 1000 pizza's at once. :-)
Shawn,
April 7, 2008 - 20:16 ET by R D HelmLOL-Oh, never mind.
I don't want to get sued for commenting on the, a'hem, quality of their, ah, product or anything.
Of course, if they could just make one corectly.....
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RDH
April 7, 2008 - 20:30 ET by shawn228If you decided to order 1000 pizzas an hr before closing time, you can bet your bottom dollar not only will they screw up your order, but you might get some bodily fluids as well. lol
shawn, thank God I make my own. Pizza, that is.
April 7, 2008 - 21:04 ET by R D Helm:-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
The real story here...
April 8, 2008 - 08:35 ET by ontheright...would be the mental health of someone who would dare order 1000 Pizza Hut pizzas...or 1, for that matter.
By the way...
April 7, 2008 - 18:04 ET by ontheright...how many stamps in your collection....under 20 and over 100 is not the norm; see the lunacy in that?
ontheright,
April 7, 2008 - 20:19 ET by R D HelmSomehow, I just don't think they have noodled this concept out to its logical conclusion.
KWIM?
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
What story?
April 7, 2008 - 13:33 ET by jpatchYou mean the story about the guy who had to move out of his two-story home because it was overflowing with weapons? That's the fictional story that was presented here.
See, reality tends to be multi-faceted. When you report on an event, you're supposed to tell the who, what, when, where and why. They told the who, the when, and the where...but the "what" and the "why" are wrong: the man did NOT move out of his two-story house because it was competely full of weapons. THAT MEANS THAT THIS STORY AS ITS TOLD IS A LIE.
A German man was such an
April 7, 2008 - 13:36 ET by balboaA German man was such an avid collector of weapons and other
paraphernalia that he ran out of space at home and had to sleep in a
hotel.
Weapons AND paraphernalia.
But weapons were first...
April 7, 2008 - 13:50 ET by sarcasmo"Paraphernalia" can literally mean anything...
And Reuters made sure we knew all about guns in paragraph 1, despite the fact that the space taken up by 72 guns is minimal at best and the actual story didn't involve either guns or violence, and instead involved if anything an overabundance of, um, paraphernalia. Please, try to convince me there's no agenda showing at Reuters.
Bal, some misguided but peaceful cretins like to collect guns. Often, the guns they most-want to collect would not be terribly practical to use in any hypothetical crimes of violence, they're just pretty guns to these misguided people like oil paintings are pretty to art collectors who don't care much about guns (or sometimes, individual rights -- at least when it comes to one called "self-defense"!).
These peaceful gun collectors, though villified by a biased media, collect guns almost regardless of expense & increasing state-imposed impediments these days.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc...I would rate this
April 7, 2008 - 17:46 ET by Jersarc...I would rate this story in the minimal to moderate range on the bias scale [for its anti-gun suggestivity].
Let's look at what Reuters didn't do:
--make any mention of guns in the attention-grabbing headline
--state or imply that it was the gun and ammo collection alone which prompted the move
--omit comments from neighbors revealing his pack-rat penchant regarding a variety of items in addition to guns
--suggest the deceased homeowner was a danger or threat to himself or his neighbors, or that he was psychologically impaired
There was an unnecessary emphasis by Reuters on the weaponry aspect of the collection, and the photo should have been explained...thus my bias rating.
Jer
Update...Just noticed the photo is captioned when expanded. Still misleading, but bias level is slightly reduced.
I wonder if he had any
April 7, 2008 - 13:00 ET by Jack BauerI wonder if he had any Flintlocks? That'd be cool. Especially for duels.
Leon and Bal,
April 7, 2008 - 15:54 ET by voodoodaddyYou may get more respect if you quit using crayons when you troll. I mean puhleeeze. If you cannot see the blatant bias in this report then you truly are beyond ignorant.
Exalted "voodoodaddy"
April 7, 2008 - 15:59 ET by balboaThe definition of troll, to my understanding, isn't "write a post that the vaunted, peerless 'voodoodaddy' doesn't agree with."
That
April 8, 2008 - 06:58 ET by voodoodaddyincludes magic markers also.
Only 71?
April 7, 2008 - 17:31 ET by JoelCTHe only had 71 guns? He's obviously NOT from Texas! <grin>
I took my kids to that Cabela's one time. We had a blast. If you ever get the chance to stop in one, do yourself and your kids a favor and stop! There are always tons of things to see and do. The stuffed exotic animals alone make it worth the stop.
So this, I'll take it law
April 7, 2008 - 17:52 ET by BlazerSo this, I'll take it law abiding man had 71 gun's? So what's the big deal? You can only shoot at the most two at a time before it start's to become difficult, and ridiculous.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
"A German man was such an
April 7, 2008 - 18:08 ET by MikeB"A German man was such an avid collector of guns and other paraphernalia that he ran out of space at home."
From the way that sentence is structured, it seems it would imply to most readers that the paraphernalia applied to guns. What would gun paraphernalia be? Well, boxes of ammo, reloading supplies and tools, gun cleaning tools and supplies, perhaps gun smithing tools, bluing kits, and so forth.
If Reuters wanted to exhibit a bit more journalistic integrity (oxymoron), the line could have read: "A German man was such an avid collector of all kinds of stuff, including 71 guns, that he ran out of space at home." Or, they could have been even more objective by not mentioning the guns at all, unless they also listed "x number of rooms full of clothing, y number of rooms full of garden tools, and z number of watches."
Leon, bal, if Reuters wasn't trying to spin this story the way it has been spun to everyone but you, why did they specifically mention the number of firearms, amount of ammo, and the sword canes at the first of the article, and only mention the rest of the crap he collected only down in the body of the article, where most people don't bother to read?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Media anti-gun bias harmful
April 8, 2008 - 11:50 ET by MaximusBraveheartThis type of ill reporting underminds the truth that guns make you on equal footing with criminals.