[P95Carry]

I think there is a huge divide regarding both culpability and consequences.

As you mention - almost always the journalist can ''just apologize'' and that is supposed to be enough. We on the other hand have all hell break lose when our side errs - aided and abetted by the media.

Main deal is - we are the under-dogs for starters and so have a disadvantage already. We mostly acknowledge if sensible, that free speech is not free, in as much as whoever says whatever, still has to accept the possibility of consequences, but unless into the realms of proveable slander (or libel of course with written word) - then there is little comeback.

If the journalists followed the lead of good and safe gun owners then the press would/could probably improve its image and output.

 

[Tom357]

I'd say accountability rather than immediacy. Response to sensational journalism can be swift. Journalists are rarely held accountable for the consequences of their stories. Even when they are, it is often very difficult to prove malicious intent.

By the same token, when people act out in response to a story, I think the story is often the excuse rather than the cause.

 

[CopperKnight]

I think that's probably an accurate way of looking at it. He hides behind "free press" despite his actions. We certainly can't hide behind "bear arms" if we kill 15 people. The results are the same, but for some reason the views are different. I guess personal responsibility doesn't matter to "them", while it's paramount for "us". I don't know how they can say it's not their fault...I really don't.