Posted on 05/20/2003 3:09:01 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PHILLIPS: Viewers are speaking out on a segment we aired yesterday concerning the federal ban on assault weapons. The 1994 ban could expire in September 2004 if Congress doesn't extend it.
Now here's a sampling of your viewer e-mail.
From David in Calhoun, Georgia: "It's not the weapon which has the knockdown power, it's the ammo."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
LAPIERRE: Let me say it again. In front of the whole country, your reporter faked that story yesterday. It deliberately misread...
And Kyra Phillips' LAME responses? Here they are:
PHILLIPS: Well, we're not going to continue this interview because our reporter did not fake...
PHILLIPS: OK, that is not true. We did not a fake a story.
PHILLIPS: And we all stick by John Zarrella and how credible of a reporter he is.
Well, it did turn out that CNN FAKED that story. They tried to downplay it yesterday but FRAUD was committed. Please don't let this story of CNN FRAUD fade away!
Did you see the way CNN tried to SLITHER their way out of this story on Monday?
Last week it was the NY Times, this week it's CNN. I don't think we can expect these liberal mouthpieces to respond to our queries. They just keep rolling on with their anti-American agenda like the Terminator.
Let's go chat with April Oliver, Peter Arnett, and Vernon Eason, shall we?
JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is a semiautomatic firearm. It instantly self-loads and fires one bullet for each trigger pull. The 1994 Crime Control Act says it is unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. The law defines a semiautomatic assault weapon by name and description, listing 19 specific firearms by name that are illegal.
The law also bans certain rifles, pistols and shotguns by description, as well as large capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The law is very specific. For a semiautomatic rifle to be banned, it must be able to use a detachable magazine and have at least two of the following features: A flash suppressor, a bayonet mount, a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, or a grenade launcher.
Gary Reno (ph), a retired 30-year police officer and assistant chief in Oakland Park, Florida.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's examine the banned weapon.
ZARRELLA: ... explained the difference between a banned AR-15 and its legal clone.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Flash suppressor, bayonet log, high capacity magazine, over 10 rounds, pistol grip and a telescoping rear stock.
ZARRELLA (on camera): And the legal weapon doesn't have those features, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doesn't have any of those features. Does not have a flash suppressor, does not have a bayonet log, has a legal 10- round magazine. Does have the pistol grip, but it has no other features so it makes it a legal firearm, and has a solid rear stock.
ZARRELLA (voice-over): Pro-ban advocates say each of these features would make the weapons more deadly, but anti-ban supporters say those features are only cosmetic and don't contribute to and increase in crime. With only one of the listed features, the gun is legal. And without those features, experts say the guns are identical.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's exactly the same gun.
ZARRELLA (on camera): And the same firepower.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Same firepower, same bullet, you have to squeeze the trigger once to make a bullet go down the barrel.
ZARRELLA (voice-over): In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact.
Here is a .223 caliber bullet fired from a banned AR-15 rifle. Now, the legal version of that rifle.
The smaller hole made by the second gun has nothing to do with the gun or ammunition. The shooter just hit the second target more times in the same place.
Both sides cited Justice Department study about the impact of the law as proof of their argument. Those who oppose the ban say the study shows the ban has had no impact on the reduction of crime and that the answer is to enforce the laws already on the books. WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXEC. VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: What stops crime is every time a violent felon touches a gun, a violent drug dealer, a violent criminal, use the existing federal law, prosecute him 100 percent, confront the criminal directly, and take him off the street and put him in jail.
I think in this interview she was defending CNN (her bread & butter) more than she was trying to slant a story. But then again...
Hopefully Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others will give this FRAUD by CNN the coverage it deserves.
Phillips didn't slant the story, Zarrella did. Phillips only offered an incredibly LAME defense of the fraud committed by Zarrella. Note how on Monday Zarrella tried to take it all back. He wouldn't have done it had LaPierre not EXPOSED his FRAUD.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The scandal rocking The New York Times right now is a journalistic low point. I am referring to the shocking news that a supposedly bright and talented young reporter, Jayson Blair, was a liar and a plagiarizer. Instead of reporting all the news that's fit to print, he simply made it up as he went along. I know all of you have been following this scandal, and while it's certainly not the first time that a journalist has been caught cheating -- many of you will remember the Janet Cook affair at The Washington Post and the Stephen Glass affair at The New Republic -- it seems to be have been the most sustained.
Here's what worries me so much. So many Americans already have a rather low regard for journalists; so many of our viewers, readers and listeners simply don't trust us. Many of them, according to public opinion polls, believe we have political agendas and biases that taint our reporting. And many of our news consumers, no doubt, suspect we often make things up -- whether to advance a political cause, or settle personal scores, or sell newspapers and increase ratings on television. What has now happened at The New York Times has simply fueled those suspicions.
It will now take The New York Times a long time to win back the trust of its readers. The top editors and executives at that newspaper have begun the process but they still have a lot of explaining to do. And in the process of explaining, they should be as open as possible with their readers.
Journalism is not a perfect science. It is often referred to as a first draft of history. And as all of you know, a first draft can occasionally be sloppy. Yes, we will make mistakes. But those are unwitting mistakes. There must be zero tolerance for deliberate distortions, false reporting and fiction writing in the guise of journalism. They cannot be tolerated.
Healthy skepticism is critical in doing our job. In my experience, if a story sounds too good to be true, it almost always is. Check and re-check and triple-check those sources. There are people with agendas trying to use us for their own purposes. And there are others who simply get their kicks out of advancing hoaxes on the news media. Those of us in the business of reporting have to err on the side of caution -- even if that means losing a scoop.
-Wolf Blitzer, CNN
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.