Daily Mirror article

[Ian_Gere]

My points are that, true or not, these facts are not news, they are not particularly relevant to news, given that the kid was shot in the USA, where farting loudly could get you shot by police and the laws are totally different, and, more importantly, there are a great many more things which harm children happening day in day out and many of those are a good deal more useless/pointless and/or generally harmful than airguns. Regardless of which, calling them BB guns in an article which references law, when lawfully they are airguns, is at least disingenuous and that is not something which a journalist can afford to be. Which, especially in the light of the concrete comment, therefore brings us to other motives. It is not up to us to make excuses for the the failures of veracity in a piece written by a professional journalist - if she doesn't know the difference between concrete and plaster she should mention neither - I don't know the difference between an English Horn and Flugelhorn off the top of my head, but if I had a job recording them I would bloody find out!

[CaptainSwoop]

We know the artical is Tosh but if a Newspaper decided t ostart a campaign against Airsoft and AIr Weapons then it will end badly for us.

Politicians like to be seen to be doing things and if it is doing things about kids getting guns then the original artical being tosh won't enter in to it.

 

Airsofters who are concerned need to contact the Mirror and put them right.

[Longshot]

But again, what's 'tosh' about it?

 

For one it's not a 'news' piece, it's a commentary piece. It's not there because she's paid to do investigative journalism, it's there because she's supposed to represent 'concerned mothers' or something of the like (I'm guessing, given that her other pieces seem to be about things like video games - although she seems to be quite liberal in regards to them). Essentially some kid gets shot for having an 'air gun' and The Mirror goes to their 'what would mum think?' lady who says: "as a mother I think that's really worrying, in fact my kids have air guns and they were easy to get. This week I'll let people know that they should be worried too."

 

Fair enough, she's not really researched the entire background of the specific laws and specific variations of air weapons available (but even if she had, how would that change the point of her article?) but that's because she's just giving an account of her personal experience. 99% of the people who are now commenting on her commentary haven't actually bothered to read what she has said properly anyway! We do have to remember that the term 'BB' is not exclusive to plastic 6mm projectiles and airsoft weapons; there are CO2 powered metal BB guns out there (which given her description of the gun her son bought this seems more likely to be than an airsoft gun). Yet in spite of the fact that she doesn't mention 'airsoft' once in her article we're all saying: "how dare she attack airsoft?!" (and also: "hah! She doesn't know what her walls are made out of!").

 

As an airsofter I'm always concerned when airsoft related articles are full of falsehoods and/or misinformation that reflect badly on our sport (or indeed endanger it's continued existence), but I really just can't see it with this particular commentary from a low level pseudo celebrity. As I've said before, she has not mentioned airsoft by name, and simply stated these points:

• Air weapons can hurt or kill children = TRUE
• Air weapons can get children hurt or killed by the police = TRUE
• Air weapons can be purchased by children in spite of the laws = TRUE

Not an attack on airsoft, but a commentary from someone who is paid to reflect the concerns of parents (and arguably these things should be a concern - I really don't think the argument: 'yeah, but cocaine can get kids killed too!' is sufficient enough to mean we should ignore other issues that can get them killed). If the best we've got as a reply to this article is: "you're stupid Fiona Phillips! Your walls are made of plaster not concrete. There's no way that the guns that our kids can easily get hold of could dent concrete (though you're right to say they could blind and potentially kill them)" then I don't really think we have much of worth to say.

[M_P]

But again, what's 'tosh' about it?

The fact that it's in the mirror?

[Longshot]

The fact that it's in the mirror?

This is true.

[Ian_Gere]

What makes it tosh is that there are several factual inaccuracies which all make the 'threat' she is commenting on seem more worrying than if she had researched her topic thoroughly. The point about cocaine is valid because the only way a child can get hold of any BB gun, air weapon or airsoft, is illegally and therefore, if she wants to comment on this, the responsible journalistic approach would be to find out exactly how it was done and compare that to how difficult it is for children to obtain other prohibited potentially harmful items.

 

To simply make out that potentially lethal BB guns are easily obtainable is classic scaremongering, otherwise known as tosh. Especially since the power necessary to fire a metal BB with lethal force is not available in something easily concealed like an ordinary air pistol. In fact, given the ballistic differences between a BB and an aerodynamic lead pellet, I doubt that the average air rifle could do it. Which then brings us on, responsibly, to comparing how difficult it is to obtain high powered air weapons to obtaining illegal firearms, which we know is also possible.

 

"Shock horror! A threat to your children exists! You already know it exists, but we need to fill column inches."

 

...just doesn't play as a tag line as well as a 'new' threat exaggerated and conflated with other more dangerous threats. Tosh sells, but that doesn't mean we should forgive it simply because the style of the piece isn't investigative journalism. If she had written that I am a fine upstanding citizen, it would still be libellous, no matter the style of the piece. Just as she would damage my reputation, which could affect my livelihood, 'libelling' BB guns in general could affect many people's livelihoods...

[Baz JJ]

We all know how this works.

 

Editor asks her to submit a piece of so many words for a certain deadline.

That is her job.

 

She looks around her and thinks "what can I write about".

 

This little occurrence with her son suddenly gives her a subject.

 

If you look at her other work, its all in the same vein.

 

What worries me is that people might read the article and it colours their prejudice against people like us. That discrimination is now irrevocably lodged in peoples brains until the next time.

 

She has probably forgot the article now and has already moved on to the next one, the next deadline that pays the mortgage. Most of the readers wont bother even reading the comments, so the article cannot be put to rights.

 

The damage is done. Such is tabloid journalism.

[Longshot]

What makes it tosh is that there are several factual inaccuracies...

 

Where? With the exception of the fact that she means 'plaster' when she says 'concrete' the only possible other 'inaccuracy' I can find is when she says: "A toy gun, which is built to look like a real gun, that can cause injury when fired inappropriately and which is available to anyone, no age limit, online," and that's only because I can't work out whether she is referring to here or in the US (which admittedly is due to her awful writing style). Though even if she is referring to the UK (where there are theoretical age restrictions and yes, she should have made this clear again as she did earlier in the article, referring to an "over 18 rule") we all know that these aren't always adhered to; even if we don't trust her reported personal experience of this there was a thread on this very forum this weekend in which a 14 year old was talking about how he had just bought an M4 online and how his mate got one by just giving his dad the money to buy it for him!

 

This is actually an issue, whether we feel threatened by it or not. It is too easy for kids to get air weapons which can hurt them or get them killed; why are airsofters so annoyed about someone pointing this out? Surely what they should be annoyed about is the fact that this issue isn't properly addressed. And no, I don't think your cocaine argument is valid, because the context you used it in suggested we should not talk about the problems of air weapons when the problem of cocaine exists, and that's like saying we shouldn't talk about cocaine because meth exists, or, to reverse your final point that "the responsible journalistic approach would be to find out exactly how it was done and compare that to how difficult it is for children to obtain other prohibited potentially harmful items," that a news article about children easily obtaining cocaine wouldn't be valid unless the journalist who wrote it also investigated and talked about how easy it is to obtain air weapons (and indeed any other illegal thing) by comparison within the same article.

 

We can't not discuss a problem just because there are other problems out there and we can't become NIMBYs just because someone points out that there are problems in an area which we are involved with and care about.

[chris555]

I feel dangerous ground is being trod on and that the united front we should take is as a parent its her job to control her children and if they are buying guns illegally its a matter of shutting down the site and dealing with the police. the jurno scum read these forums looking for storys don't give them ammo to further ruin airsoft.

[Ian_Gere]

the article cannot be put to rights.

 

The damage is done. Such is tabloid journalism.

 

Teen Journos In BB Gun Massacre

Today in Wapping armed police were called to an incident involving an armed gunman at a well known sushi bar frequented by female journalists. During the bloodbath which ensued, Ian Gere, 45 of Nottingham UK, is reported to have killed an unknown number of patrons and one employee. In the aftermath two children aged 15, Clarice Puddinskin and Ashley Vespantsov, winners of last month's highly popular Useless Wannabe competition sponsored by The Mirror, lay dead amidst the carnage which also claimed the lives of adult journalists and employee, Japanese ballistics student, Ironi Kendo. Gere himself was finally gunned down in a heavy but accurate hail of police gunfire before he had chance to reload his weapon. At this time it is not known whether our own beloved columnist Fiona Phillips was present at the massacre, but colleagues have confirmed that she is alive and well. (Turn to page 6 for her comment)

 

Sex And The City

A witness told the Mirror that Gere entered the establishment with his face hidden behind a black mesh paintball mask and carrying a Chinese made American M16 rifle modified to fire steel ball bearings. He was dressed head to toe in a black uniform, just like those used by the SAS during the famous Iranian Embassy Siege. Before opening fire with his easily obtainable weapon, he shouted "Why don't you stick to pretending your lives are episodes of Sex And The City and writing about that? I mean sh*t, that's something you can do accurately without all the bother of even cursory research!" A survivor stated that he then opened fire, spinning round and round spraying thousands of steel BB's in every direction, shattering tableware, denting concrete walls, and causing horrifying injuries, many of which proved fatal.

 

Cheap Handle Makes All The Difference

When the high capacity magazine eventually ran out of ammunition, Gere turned the steel butt of the weapon on the room full of helpless women. In this cowardly and heartless prolonged attack Gere ignored their cries for help and screams and, even as The Metropolitan Police Tactical Firearms Unit stormed the building, continued to viciously beat his victims. Using the weapon as a makeshift club was made all the easier because it had been modified with a tactical foregrip, which we were surprised to discover can be bought for only £7.99 online, attached to the heavy steel rails surrounding the rifle's barrel.

 

Terrorist Training Centres All Over UK

Firearms experts confirmed that the M16's shorter barrel makes it ideal to be concealed under a raincoat, but the addition of the foregrip allows for greater accuracy from such carbine sized assault rifles. It is believed that Gere was trained in the use and modification of such weapons at Skirmish Paintball, a nationwide franchise which holds regular weekend events at its secretive out of the way locations. Alongside the familiar stag party and corporate team building events is the little known practice of "Airsoft" which uses these BB guns to train all participants, many as young as 14 or below, in the use of assault weapons, easily modified pyrotechnic explosives, and terrorist tactics. Coalition Government spokesperson Max Fullers-Hitbag announced that this quasi-legal activity has long been under surveillance by the security services but, at this time, he was unable to comment on such ongoing investigations.

[Ian_Gere]

BTW Longshot, what makes your reply comment above tosh is taking only part of what I said and arguing against it as if my point was indeed the narrow view which you apparently believe is merely repetition, since you have pretty much restated your previous objections to previously made points. I am not going to re-catalogue the factual inaccuracies I have already drawn attention to, but instead draw your attention to the italic "all" which followed shortly after the section of my sentence you chose to quote.

 

My point is that, if the wench in question had made one inaccurate statement, it could simply be sloppy work. If her inaccuracies averaged out so that some made the story seem more worrying and some less, it would be simply even sloppier. But that is not the case. In fact her trivial seeming 'mistakes', which you have correctly inferred as such, all serve to make the article more worrying. The effect of this consistent 'exaggeration' then, in the minds of uninformed readers, is the same as a single well stated argument drawing upon indisputable facts.

 

The truth however is that she is a professional writer. Her copy is proof read before publication. The whole process is overseen by editors and lawyers who fully know the difference between accidental vagueness which can be allowed to stand because it doesn't affect the tone of the piece in any relevant manner and a series of small lies, each of which is couched in terms vague enough to be deniable and each of which can be dismissed as too trivial to matter, but which nevertheless create the desired tone for the article. Basically she is either a lying bitch or an incompetent bitch overseen by liars.

[Finius]

Why are we even still talking about this?

[SgtTalbert]

Because........

 

THIS

 

IS

 

SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

no...wait. Wrong place....

 

*carry on*

[Mike636]

I doubt anyone aside from the people on this thread read the article, there are killer spiders on the loose, they are in our homes people fucking hell global warming will end us all ( ignore the snow we had last year )Plus maybe the SAS murdered Diana

[Ian_Gere]

Plus maybe the SAS murdered Diana

No, that was Delta Force. The SAS just fucked her corpse.

[Mike636]

Chuck Norris had nothing to do with that good sir!

[Ian_Gere]

^^That's what they all say!

[Longshot]

BTW Longshot, what makes your reply comment above tosh is taking only part of what I said and arguing against it as if my point was indeed the narrow view which you apparently believe is merely repetition, since you have pretty much restated your previous objections to previously made points. I am not going to re-catalogue the factual inaccuracies I have already drawn attention to, but instead draw your attention to the italic "all" which followed shortly after the section of my sentence you chose to quote.

 

My point is that, if the wench in question had made one inaccurate statement, it could simply be sloppy work. If her inaccuracies averaged out so that some made the story seem more worrying and some less, it would be simply even sloppier. But that is not the case. In fact her trivial seeming 'mistakes', which you have correctly inferred as such, all serve to make the article more worrying. The effect of this consistent 'exaggeration' then, in the minds of uninformed readers, is the same as a single well stated argument drawing upon indisputable facts.

 

The truth however is that she is a professional writer. Her copy is proof read before publication. The whole process is overseen by editors and lawyers who fully know the difference between accidental vagueness which can be allowed to stand because it doesn't affect the tone of the piece in any relevant manner and a series of small lies, each of which is couched in terms vague enough to be deniable and each of which can be dismissed as too trivial to matter, but which nevertheless create the desired tone for the article. Basically she is either a lying bitch or an incompetent bitch overseen by liars.

 

So to summarise, you declare that "there are several factual inaccuracies" in the piece, I challenge you to show what they are, you can't, and then you decide that my somehow dropping the word 'all' in relation to the apparent cumulative effect of all the inaccuracies that you can't actually point out means that all thsee inaccuracies exist again. But they don't, even if you choose not "re-catalogue" them (where did you 'catalogue' them the first place?).

 

You might well accuse me of repetition, but that's because my point has been the same from the off: this columnist has a point that is a concern in relation to air weapons, and airsofters moaning about this because they feel threatened by the problem are simply choosing to ignore that problem (she's not even talking about airsoft anyway!). Nobody, including you, has actually addressed this issue yet (which is why I'm repeating it). I'd rather be repetitive and actually have a consistent approach than to change my 'point' every post which is what you have done; here's a list: 1, The problem is "the number of armed police... and the willingness of Chief Constables to allow their deployment," 2, Talking about air weapons is redundant, since whilst they can get kids killed "so can cocaine," 3, "These facts are not news" (glad to see you're agreeing they're now 'facts' at this point) 4, "She doesn't know the difference between concrete and plaster" 5, ... Actually I'm bored of listing now, but you get the idea.

 

You keep changing your mind about what the 'problem' is with her article (is it her fault, the editor's fault, the lawyers' fault, etc.) and pointing out that there are other dangers to kids out there (which if course there are) without ever actually addressing the problem that she is raising (albeit in a poorly written way) about the dangers posed to kids by the availability of air weapons. If your only issue was: 'this article is tosh because she has a poor writing style and she could have completed and presented more research into the topic' I'd happily agree with you (although I still don't see how, even if she listed every related law in the land, this would change her point that kids can get these weapons and they can get them hurt or killed). However, you (along with most other people who are moaning about the article) are so hung up on 'defending airsoft' (again, despite the fact that she doesn't mention airsoft and isn't actually talking about airsoft weapons from what I can gather) that you're willing to overlook the real issue that she is trying to raise in her limited commentary column space.

[Longshot]

Right. I've had a re-think; that last post was far too rambling and harsh (not like me, I know - though the fact that my little boy now gets me out of bed at 5 because his body clock thinks it's 6 has made me extra grouchy!).

 

Ian (and others) I think the reason we're in disagreement is because we're talking about two different things. You're concerned about the potential overreaction that people have when they read about her saying 'BB guns are easy to get and can hurt kids' and the impact this could potentially have on airsoft. I agree with you on that. It probably was irresponsible on her part to write about an issue without being clear about the terminology she was using (though I still don't think she is, or sees herself as, a 'proper journalist' - I'm not sure anyone at The Mirror is actually...). So I agree with you, she's a crap journalist and her article is potentially misleading to the general public. If her editor or legal team cared they should have called her on this.

 

The problem that I have is that in getting so hung up on the issue of bad journalistic presentation everyone seems happy to ignore the fact that behind her 'journalist' persona she is also a parent who is concerned about the easy availability of toy guns that can hurt kids or get them killed. I'm concerned about this too, which is why it's annoying me that nobody is addressing this issue. Arguably if she (or someone else) had written a better piece on it we may have taken the point more seriously (though I have a feeling most of us would still shout: "Airsoft defenders to the rescue!" and lay blindly into it no matter what was said), and so Fiona Phillips is to blame for the fact that nobody who knows what they are talking about will take her seriously.

 

As a result I'm going to leave this thread so it can be the 'Fiona Phillips is a crap journalist' thread and I'm going to start another thread looking at the issue behind all this: are RIFs too easy for kids to obtain?