The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

If you thought the BBC story was bad, take a look at this one:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... g-about-it

The utter ignorance of what he's talking about is earth-shattering!

"Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics."
Even if he does say so himself!

He's special all right. Apparently you can pay £1 per issue to subscribe to read more ill-researched guff.
Why would you though? You can hear the ramblings of pub 'experts' and town 'characters' any day of the week for free.

When I was first married, I had a newspaper delivered as my parents did. I was involved in heavy truck design and the papers were full of stories about "juggernoughts", road damage and safety. All the information in the articles was untrue and rubbish. It occured to me that there were very few subjects that I could really call myself an expert on and if the reports on these were rubbish, then chances were that all the reporting on other subjects was equally inaccurate.
I cancelled the newspaper.
It is now 52 years since I bought a newspaper. I don't feel uninformed and I am not being mislead on a daily basis.
I would like to see a new law passed: it should be a criminal act to print anything that is not factual and true in a newspaper.
Fred

To be a journalist you have to be totally bereft of dignity, integrity, honesty and have nothing but contempt for your fellow humans. Journalists truly are the scum of the earth.

Come the revolution they will be the second lot up against the wall straight after the packaging "designers"!

There has been a serious decline in standards over the years. Rags such as The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express, The Star etc. were always comics for adults that told their readers what they wanted to hear, often accompanied with a nice pair of boobs. The serious newspapers made more effort to be factually correct.

There was a time when "if it was in The Times then you knew it was true." Sadly that's no longer the case. These days it often feels like I've picked up my mum's copy of the Daily Fail - complete with poor grammar and typos. I think I only take it now from force of habit - reading the paper with my morning coffee. I should stop that as it's quite expensive these days.

Once newspapers and broadcasters realised they had serious competition from online 'news' it became a race to the bottom. And they're almost there.

JSC wrote:If you thought the BBC story was bad, take a look at this one:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... g-about-it

People have tried to explain to Stephen Bush on Twitter how horrifically inaccurate his article is including those who are on the other side of the gun debate or neutral on the matter and he is having nothing of it. He is belligerent in his views, anything with a barrel is an 'Assault rifle' as far as he is concerned.

In one Tweet he even defended using the term 'Assault Rifle' as it would be easier to understand for the General Public in our 'Anti-gun' country.

Fedaykin wrote:In one Tweet he even defended using the term 'Assault Rifle' as it would be easier to understand for the General Public in our 'Anti-gun' country.

I looked at his profile picture on the New Statesman and instinctively thought "scruffy sod, I expect his research is just as lazy as his appearance."
I'm glad I can still judge a book by its cover and be reassuringly accurate. :)