accuracy in media
you should know if you read LRC that some writers present routinely errors dressed in an authoritative voice — one fuckup after another.
couple of weeks ago it was wendy mcelroy’s manufacturing of words for rumsfeld. you didn’t have to know anything other than logic to know it was false. everything she provided indicated it. i emailed her about it. no reply. vaughn croteau wrote the reporter who wrote the article she “quoted”. he confirmed that mcelroy was wrong. the result? that utterly false crap is still on the site. this has happened repeatedly with LRC blog posters.
today, the glib, overconfident asshole greg perry publishes potentially dangerous misinformation with regard to TSA “regs” on transporting guns on airline flights. he decided he was going to transport a handgun to vegas. after reading the policy of southwest airlines, he went to his local gun store to get a locking box:
I told the clerk what I was doing and asked if he had a small ammo box approved by the airlines. He said it was illegal to fly with ammo and a gun. I told him what Southwest Airlines’ web site said. He said the airlines will tell you that you can travel with both but it’s against federal laws.That is quite interesting. The airlines are promoting the violation of federal laws by telling you how to pack ammo along with your weapon.
Not one to take a chance, I decided my first stop after landing in Vegas would be Wal-Mart for ammo.
oh please. complete, unforgivable bullshit. the inept muttering of some gun store lackey is transmitted to the LRC readership without even the laziest attempt at a fact check. perry then includes a checklist for those interested in flying the airlines with a gun. item #5:
When you land, find a Wal-Mart and buy ammo.
followed by:
Too bad they don’t let you pack your ammo also. Having to buy a box after landing is the only hassle left in the process. If only I could mail myself a few bullets…It’s illegal to mail ammo except through expensive overnight services such as FedEx. So don’t drop a few bullets in a well-padded envelope without a return address and mail them to yourself at your destination to save the cost of buying a new box of ammo at Wal-Mart…. It’s what I won’t do the next time a fly. There, I said it in print so I am covered.
WTF. why is this jerk even bringing up mailing ammo with regard to flying with a gun? if you go to the TSA web site, you can find within four clicks this information:
- Any ammunition transported must be securely packed in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition.
- Firearm magazines/clips do not satisfy the packaging requirement unless they provide a complete and secure enclosure of the ammunition (e.g., by securely covering the exposed portions of the magazine or by securely placing the magazine in a pouch, holder, holster or lanyard).
- The ammunition may also be located in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as it is properly packed as described above.
not only does the TSA condone flying with ammo, it can be in the same case as the gun. obviously, greg perry is full of shit. i suspect he slacked off because he had his wal-mart plugs on deck. three times he mentions wal-mart as the place to buy ammo. however, contrary to reigning LRC/mises dogma (with some contrary exceptions, fortunately), wal-mart is not a friend of the free market. i suggest that when buying ammo you find a place that doesn’t rely on “eminent domain” (including the threat of it) to steal property from others, with its head firmly up the ass of local government.
giving a gun owner false information these days can have harmful unintended consequences. in no case should a gun owner not have a gun without ammunition against his wish. and when traveling, do you think you need the extra stress of finding an ammo store as soon as you arrive in town? get real. in some places that’s not going to happen at all.
a gun owner flying the airlines should go to the airport with his ducks in a row, carrying the printed TSA “policy” and airline policies, including the URLs whence they came. what you will often find is that the situation is entirely reversed from what perry (via his jerkoff gun store clerk) claims; it will be the airlines with the more restrictive policy, and that “policy” may have just been pulled from the ass of whatever scaredy-cat federal-buttmunching moron you get stuck with. do you think the TSA morons on site are going to assert that you may have ammo in the same box? not likely. in any case, don’t get stuck in the ridiculous situation of running back and forth between the check-in counter and the TSA. if the airline staff is in the weeds, they’ll often make up whatever “policy” gets you out of the way the quickest.
unlike greg perry the spouter, i have experience flying with a handgun and ammo. here’s the gouge:
check the TSA and specific airline policies, print both, and call ahead to settle any potential conflicts with the airline. call even if you don’t foresee a conflict. get a supervisor name and contact info. get alternate info in case that supervisor’s not available when you fly. ask what to do in case one of their employees disputes the information you just received and discussed. get the more detailed info from the airline (including policy manual paragraph refs or whatever), because it will likely be the airline that attempts to restrict things beyond their published policy — by claiming they’re “illegal”. at least with the airline you have some chance; a TSA asshole likely won’t budge if the core policy from the TSA site conflicts with on-site dogma. want to push things with a TSA goon? good luck.
keep in mind that in no case will the TSA attempt to override something an airline rep says if it’s more restrictive than TSA policy. the key is to have the published policy there with you, with the prior instructions from a supervisor at the airline about what to do if one of its employees contradicts its policy. southwest airlines is generally recognized as the most gun friendly, but i’ve done fine with several airlines following the strategy above. in any case, don’t ever get so comfortable flying with a gun that you go anywhere near a “security” check with one in your luggage. this isn’t a free country. your gun must be in checked baggage, not carry-on. check it, then go to the gate. yeah, it sucks.
when you’re standing there at the counter with a gun, it isn’t the time to not know your shit. unfortunately, many LRC writers (blog and articles) aren’t a good source for information.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:19
I’m an avid reader and fan of LewRockwell.com, but I have to admit you’ve raised a good point, and I can’t resist adding (perhaps) just a bit of fuel to the fire with some further observations.
I remember a few articles written by Thomas Woods in which he valiantly (but I thnk less than convincingly) tried to reconcile Catholic teaching and Austrian economics were criticized by some folks at Chronicles. Although some of the criticisms could have no doubt been handily overcome, there were a few that were pretty incisive.
Woods hastily put together a non-response response (i.e., article) that was published on LRC. Although the article purported to address criticisms, it deftly avoided directly addressing the more difficult ones. A rather extended discussion ensued on the Chronicles blog discussing the merits–and especially, the weaknesses of the Woods case. Although Woods made a few blog entries on the LRC blog (where nobody else can enter a comment or reaction other than other anointed LRC persons), but never wrote anything on the Chronicles blog.
The only person with enough gonads from LRC to write on the Chronicles blog (where his blog entries were subject to comment and further queries from non LRC’ers) was Stephen Kinsella, and he was woefully ill-equipped to defend Woods: the Chronicles folks for the most part ate his lunch. (By the way, despite his less than stellar performance, his guts for being willing to confront the “accusers” did earn him a certain amount of respect from me.)
Anyway, I’ve already written more than I intended, so I think I’ll stop with that one example. But I’ve seen other instances where they’ve twisted things and have been too cowardly to own up to their mistakes. (At least one hopes they were mistakes and not intentional attempts to misrepresent.)
Mind you, my criticisms must be tempered by the realization that they (the LRC crowd) have provided a great service in speading the ideas of liberty, and that alone makes me just a bit more tolerant of their shortcomings than I otherwise might be. But being a bit indulgent doesn’t mean that I’m oblivious or that those shortcomings don’t bother me. And even though one might be able to excuse the occasional cowardliness, I think that to some extent they undermine their ultimate effectiveness: one’s stature and influence can’t help but be diminished insofar as there can be a legitimate perception of sloppiness, unreliability, or (heaven forbid!) compromised honesty.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:44
thanks. this is a subject more have noticed in the last few years, and it’s basically what my site mises dot borg will address when i finally have it ready. i think one of the biggest reasons for the blowhard factor at LRC and mises is that there are many people who idolize lew rockwell and his authoritative voice without emulating his accuracy and care. he’s so far above many of the hacks writing for him, and they don’t know it. on the other hand, there are some super sharp people there still, and it’s a shame they get tainted by the losers.
i pretty much ignore any LRC-related catholic brooha. have never understood why some there consider catholicism so crucial to liberty. however, my limited email exchanges with thomas woods indicate he’s a far more accountable and approachable person than some of the dreck over there. it may be that what you noticed was pure chickenshit behavior, but, given his rising star in the “conservative” world, it could also be that he avoids publishing at an interactive forum only for time reasons. in any case, LRC and mises are going to start listening to critics or see their reputations plummet.
July 7th, 2006 at 17:13
Well, certainly it’s understandable in light of tight deadlines and the many disparate, urgent demands on time and attention that mistakes will be made. No big deal there. We all do it, and no matter how hard we try to be perfect, we’re still human. And even if we, each of us, WERE perfect, it’s unlikely that we would always have complete information prior to deadline, so mistakes would still be published occasionally.
What’s harder to excuse is apparently not caring enough about accuracy to set the record straight and correct those errors as they come to light. Certainly that would be the responsible thing to do, wouldn’t it?
See enough of that and you begin to distrust everything you read from that source….
And no, as if it even needs to be said, this is not a problem that is unique to LRC. But that doesn’t make it OK, either.
July 7th, 2006 at 18:32
Well, certainly it’s understandable in light of tight deadlines and the many disparate, urgent demands on time and attention that mistakes will be made.
mistakes will always be made, sure. however, pulling something out of your ass is… well, that’s easy to know if you’re doing it. greg perry’s recent joke is inexcusable at any time. agree with you on wendy’s rumsfeld error, in that it’s almost understandable in the original execution. however, leaving that lie about a man up there is a disgrace to her and LRC. it’s still there as i write this.
in the case of LRC articles, there are no deadlines for most writers. a rare few have self-imposed publishing schedules, but that’s something they can easily blow off if an article’s inadequate. though lew’s personal standard for accuracy is laudable, he leaves the major LRC editing duties to each writer. the blog, of course, is unscheduled and almost entirely unedited.
[...] it’s unlikely that we would always have complete information prior to deadline, so mistakes would still be published occasionally.
on that i’m not so tolerant. you know when writing what your sources are. the problem with some LRC writers is that the source is their shabby, twisted recollections. i always wrote at LRC with the vivid understanding that each sentence could be hammered by one of the many people in that audience (often a hostile audience). the liberty crowd, IMO, should do nothing less. unlike republicrats, we don’t have the inane luxury of shouting “well, ‘they’ did it too!”
May 18th, 2010 at 19:09
[...] how often dilberts from LRC and LvMI distort quotes and reshape articles to fit their spin. douglas french writes, Jonathon and Brandy Miller are suing homebuilder [...]
December 20th, 2010 at 13:15
[...] you, your bullshit headline, and the unaccountable retards with you at LRC, are a joke. you left truth behind long ago, though it was your surest asset. what [...]