MScottz
Newly Enlightened
When you think of it, very few politicians have been capable of achieving the standard they should be held too, especially in Congress.
Vice president shoots man. Quail at the thought
- Thread starter Wits' End
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
PhotonWrangler
Flashaholic
MScottz said:
I certainly agree. That's why we have the media. :huh:
MScottz
Newly Enlightened
Yeeaaaaaahhhhhhh.......you can trust them!
LifeNRA
Flashaholic*
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,453
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120
Here is a good article on firearm related deaths for 2005.
Here is a good article on firearm related deaths for 2005.
FlashInThePan
Enlightened
A few points I'd like to add.
First, many people in this thread have debated the safety of hunting. I'm not really sure that's the relevant issue. The key is whether Cheney's own conduct amounted to negligence when he pulled the trigger. For example, driving is a potentially dangerous activity, but millions of people perform it safely each day. When an accident does occur, you don't say "they were engaging in a dangerous activity by guiding a 2,000 pound steel instrument at 60 m.p.h., so they must be guilty." Rather, you ask "were they driving safely this time, in this situation?" Regardless of the overall risk of hunting, the only thing that really matters is whether Cheney was performing this particular activity competently. If hunting is a more dangerous activity, that simply means that he should have exercised more care when doing it. But his individual actions are still the key. Although he could still be possibly found negligent, everything I've read so far suggests that it was a true, reasonable accident.
Second, various people have mentioned that the press released private information about the victim's health. I'm not sure that's true. I think that the press has actually been fairly reserved in its reporting - no pictures, no torrid descriptions. Just enough of an explanation to get the idea across.
As to whether the event itself is newsworthy, it unquestionably is. If the vice president accidentally struck and seriously injured a pedestrian while driving, no one can doubt that it would be a newsworthy event. This is similar. (If anything, it's worse. After all, driving has some utility because it gets you from place to place; hunting's just for fun. To cut off any objections, I know that some people hunt for food - but I'm pretty sure that Cheney's hunt was just for fun).
Finally, the press isn't so much worried about the fact that the VP shot someone as they are about the way that the White House handled the incident. Apparently, the White House felt that it was acceptable to utilize a private citizen to announce that the VP had just shot someone. Moreover, the citizen made the announcement only to a local newspaper, and only after an entire day had passed.
This really raises two problems. First, taking so long to report the incident simply makes it look like the White House was trying to buy time to see if the story would die quietly without being reported. Regardless of whether that was their intent, their actions created that appearance.
Second, the press is concerned because it feels that this sort of information should be disseminated by a single, reliable point of contact. If the White House starts to use random private individuals as a vehicle to announce official news, how would we ever know whose statements to trust? Could you ever discredit your crazy neighbor's statements about the president's health? After all, she might be the very individual the White House has chosen to officially announce this news! When anyone can speak on behalf of the president, everyone's statement appears equally legitimate and you have no idea who you should ultimately trust.
In dealing with an incident like this, there's real value in transparency, immediacy and a single point of contact. All were lacking here, and *that's* what bothered the press.
First, many people in this thread have debated the safety of hunting. I'm not really sure that's the relevant issue. The key is whether Cheney's own conduct amounted to negligence when he pulled the trigger. For example, driving is a potentially dangerous activity, but millions of people perform it safely each day. When an accident does occur, you don't say "they were engaging in a dangerous activity by guiding a 2,000 pound steel instrument at 60 m.p.h., so they must be guilty." Rather, you ask "were they driving safely this time, in this situation?" Regardless of the overall risk of hunting, the only thing that really matters is whether Cheney was performing this particular activity competently. If hunting is a more dangerous activity, that simply means that he should have exercised more care when doing it. But his individual actions are still the key. Although he could still be possibly found negligent, everything I've read so far suggests that it was a true, reasonable accident.
Second, various people have mentioned that the press released private information about the victim's health. I'm not sure that's true. I think that the press has actually been fairly reserved in its reporting - no pictures, no torrid descriptions. Just enough of an explanation to get the idea across.
As to whether the event itself is newsworthy, it unquestionably is. If the vice president accidentally struck and seriously injured a pedestrian while driving, no one can doubt that it would be a newsworthy event. This is similar. (If anything, it's worse. After all, driving has some utility because it gets you from place to place; hunting's just for fun. To cut off any objections, I know that some people hunt for food - but I'm pretty sure that Cheney's hunt was just for fun).
Finally, the press isn't so much worried about the fact that the VP shot someone as they are about the way that the White House handled the incident. Apparently, the White House felt that it was acceptable to utilize a private citizen to announce that the VP had just shot someone. Moreover, the citizen made the announcement only to a local newspaper, and only after an entire day had passed.
This really raises two problems. First, taking so long to report the incident simply makes it look like the White House was trying to buy time to see if the story would die quietly without being reported. Regardless of whether that was their intent, their actions created that appearance.
Second, the press is concerned because it feels that this sort of information should be disseminated by a single, reliable point of contact. If the White House starts to use random private individuals as a vehicle to announce official news, how would we ever know whose statements to trust? Could you ever discredit your crazy neighbor's statements about the president's health? After all, she might be the very individual the White House has chosen to officially announce this news! When anyone can speak on behalf of the president, everyone's statement appears equally legitimate and you have no idea who you should ultimately trust.
In dealing with an incident like this, there's real value in transparency, immediacy and a single point of contact. All were lacking here, and *that's* what bothered the press.
DieselDave
Super Moderator,
Flash,
I gotta disagree.
First if Cheney would have shot a reporter, or a non-hunting bystander then it raises it to news equal to that of striking a pedestrian. He shot a fellow hunter, a friend, someone that assumed the risk of hunting in close proximity to another person wielding a firearm. As hunters know and fully accept when hunting close to other people, this kind of accident can happen. It would be real news if the VP had been shot. I imagine part of the reason the media thinks it's such a big deal is because I bet only a small percentage of them have ever hunted or fired a weapon.
Second,
The reason so many people are concerned about the delay in reporting is because the media is telling everyone that will listen they should be. If I didn't hear from the media how earth shakingly important it was that the all important media be informed before the man hits the ground I would have never even considered it nor do I believe would most of America thought anything about it. Like I said before, it's an assumed risk not a stray bolt of lightning.
Having the owner of the property, the one that eyewitnessed the event, the one with no obvious political agenda report it to the media seems natural to me. Doing it the next day which didn't allow the media to hover over the bleeding man as he's wheeled into the hospital is OK with me.
I just hope the guy recovers. At 78 years old it may be tough.
I gotta disagree.
First if Cheney would have shot a reporter, or a non-hunting bystander then it raises it to news equal to that of striking a pedestrian. He shot a fellow hunter, a friend, someone that assumed the risk of hunting in close proximity to another person wielding a firearm. As hunters know and fully accept when hunting close to other people, this kind of accident can happen. It would be real news if the VP had been shot. I imagine part of the reason the media thinks it's such a big deal is because I bet only a small percentage of them have ever hunted or fired a weapon.
Second,
The reason so many people are concerned about the delay in reporting is because the media is telling everyone that will listen they should be. If I didn't hear from the media how earth shakingly important it was that the all important media be informed before the man hits the ground I would have never even considered it nor do I believe would most of America thought anything about it. Like I said before, it's an assumed risk not a stray bolt of lightning.
Having the owner of the property, the one that eyewitnessed the event, the one with no obvious political agenda report it to the media seems natural to me. Doing it the next day which didn't allow the media to hover over the bleeding man as he's wheeled into the hospital is OK with me.
I just hope the guy recovers. At 78 years old it may be tough.
PlayboyJoeShmoe
Flashaholic
And I think what Diesel Dave said sums it up pretty nicely!
I too hope the man comes through okay, but 78 is up there!
Hookd_On_Photons
Enlightened
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 647
I find it hard to believe that anybody in the White House thought "the story would die quietly without being reported". There is no possible way they could have covered up the incident.
Delaying the announcement was definitely not a smart thing from a PR perspective. However, it is possible the Vice President chose to do so out of concern for his friend's privacy, and the desire to avoid a flock of reporters descending upon the local Christus Spohn hospital in Kingsville where Mr. Whittington was initially evaluated and treated. The VP's office may have chosen to delay the announcement until after Mr. Whittington was transferred to the Christus Spohn Memorial hospital in Corpus Christi, which is a level 3 trauma center, and presumably better equipped to monitor patients with penetrating injuries and cardiac conditions.
Disclaimer: this is pure speculation.
And in the interests of fair and balanced meta-journalism, check this out:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996547
Delaying the announcement was definitely not a smart thing from a PR perspective. However, it is possible the Vice President chose to do so out of concern for his friend's privacy, and the desire to avoid a flock of reporters descending upon the local Christus Spohn hospital in Kingsville where Mr. Whittington was initially evaluated and treated. The VP's office may have chosen to delay the announcement until after Mr. Whittington was transferred to the Christus Spohn Memorial hospital in Corpus Christi, which is a level 3 trauma center, and presumably better equipped to monitor patients with penetrating injuries and cardiac conditions.
Disclaimer: this is pure speculation.
And in the interests of fair and balanced meta-journalism, check this out:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996547
PhotonWrangler said:
I'm not talking about keeping the shooting quiet, or keeping anything quiet. I think Cheney and his buddy screwed up. What I was saying is that I don't think it's a national scandal if the White House doesn't hold hourly press updates about the health of the victim. Everyone in the media and a lot of other folks seem furious that this isn't be reported 24/7. The heart attack was made public, what, some hours or a day after it happened? That doesn't bother me. The guy's not dead and it doesn't sound like there was any _terrible_ negligence involved with either person. While they can usually be prevented, accidents do happen. Unless there's some criminal acts being kept out of the public eye I don't care if the information takes an extra few hours to come out.
FlashInThePan
Enlightened
DieselDave, Playboy: Excellent points. I completely agree with you. When a person goes hunting, they know that they're at a higher risk of getting shot and so they have to accept that risk. The only point I was trying to make is that we should focus on Cheney's individual actions, not on whether the sport is inherently dangerous. If the sport is dangerous, it just means you have to be more careful. But assumption of risk applies. That is, I can probably sue a man who tackles me and breaks my leg while I'm walking down the street, but not one who does it while I'm playing football. That's just a risk of playing the game. But even in football, it's unacceptable for someone to tackle me, stay on top, and then keep hitting me. That's just not a normal part of football. Likewise, someone will have to judge whether Cheney was acting as a *normal* hunter would and using the care of an ordinary hunter when he shot the gun. Going hunting with a partner doesn't give your partner free license to shoot you; it just means that if he does, it's harder to prove that he was negligent. I know that we have a lot of hunters here on the board, and I was simply trying to insure that the focus was on the man, not the sport. Most hunters are cautious, and that's a good thing!
As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - the VP's office specifically decided to let the ranch owner break the news. I guess what concerns me is that this was using a private individual to report the story, and as I mentioned earlier, this method makes it harder to determine when a story is "official". I agree with you that the ranchowner was an important aspect to the story. As a direct eyewitness she had a lot to say and her version should be told. I'm only suggesting that if the White House wanted to release the story, they should have considered doing it themselves, and let the media *complete* the story by personally interviewing the witness.
And you're definitely right - the most important thing right now is Whittington's health. Everything else can be dealt with in time. Here's hoping he recovers.
As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - the VP's office specifically decided to let the ranch owner break the news. I guess what concerns me is that this was using a private individual to report the story, and as I mentioned earlier, this method makes it harder to determine when a story is "official". I agree with you that the ranchowner was an important aspect to the story. As a direct eyewitness she had a lot to say and her version should be told. I'm only suggesting that if the White House wanted to release the story, they should have considered doing it themselves, and let the media *complete* the story by personally interviewing the witness.
And you're definitely right - the most important thing right now is Whittington's health. Everything else can be dealt with in time. Here's hoping he recovers.
PlayboyJoeShmoe
Flashaholic
But let the "media" descend on her like vultures? Eek!
I'm cool with how "long" it took to find out. Doesn't make it one tiny bit worse in my opinion!
I'm cool with how "long" it took to find out. Doesn't make it one tiny bit worse in my opinion!
TonkinWarrior
Enlightened
Will the FIRST member of the Washington press corps who:
1. Knows jack about bird hunting,
2. Knows jack about guns... especially shotguns,
3. Even OWNS a gun,
4. Even believes that the Second Amendment is about, umm, "sporting purposes" (self defense and resistance to tyranny purposes not withstanding),
5. Is NOT a hostile-to-gun-owners liberal pacifist cultural elitist...
... please stand up and identify himself/herself?
Uhh, I'm still waiting.
1. Knows jack about bird hunting,
2. Knows jack about guns... especially shotguns,
3. Even OWNS a gun,
4. Even believes that the Second Amendment is about, umm, "sporting purposes" (self defense and resistance to tyranny purposes not withstanding),
5. Is NOT a hostile-to-gun-owners liberal pacifist cultural elitist...
... please stand up and identify himself/herself?
Uhh, I'm still waiting.
DieselDave
Super Moderator,
Careful Tonkin.
There's a lot of bait in your post and this is a hard enough topic to keep out of the Underground. Keep the politics out of the thread. Your "#5" crosses the line and is a no-no.
Thanks
There's a lot of bait in your post and this is a hard enough topic to keep out of the Underground. Keep the politics out of the thread. Your "#5" crosses the line and is a no-no.
Thanks
TonkinWarrior
Enlightened
DieselDave:
I concur that this topic is overloaded with political context, but that's not of my making.
Nevertheless, this would not be the first time in my public life that I've made, umm, "poignant" remarks that stepped on delicate toes. That unyielding propensity is the key reason I once declined a request to run for Congress (versus an incumbent of the * puking sounds * Million Mom persuasion).
That we are (a) in one hellacious and divisive Culture War, and (b) the Cheney shooting incident has been the subject of overblown, distorted, and biased, speculative ranting (by the likes of pundits like former "West Wing" TV writer/Dem operative Laurence O'Donnell (who wouldn't know a 28 gauge shotgun from a Lewinsky cigar) is undeniable... and central to this discussion.
I was under the impression that the Cafe IS the proper place for such topics, but if it's now deemed otherwise, then I'll respectfully defer and bow out. However, because my opinions are based on both close study AND ring-side experience in the gov't/political arena, I make no apologies for them.
Beyond that, a number of folks here (including you) have made some sound discussion points that reflect good awareness and merit broader consideration by CPFers of all stripes.
While politics is certainly not the central focus of CPF, the practical USE of our beloved flashlights is, inevitably, very much related to any discussion of firearms and Second Amendment rights, including hunting and self-defense. And that is the sub-surface nexus of some political animosities long a-boiling beneath the whole Cheney flap.
They won't be going away anytime soon. And, if you think I protest too much, call me back after the '08 elections... when "Assault Flashlight Control" legislation is proposed (For The Children, of course).
I concur that this topic is overloaded with political context, but that's not of my making.
Nevertheless, this would not be the first time in my public life that I've made, umm, "poignant" remarks that stepped on delicate toes. That unyielding propensity is the key reason I once declined a request to run for Congress (versus an incumbent of the * puking sounds * Million Mom persuasion).
That we are (a) in one hellacious and divisive Culture War, and (b) the Cheney shooting incident has been the subject of overblown, distorted, and biased, speculative ranting (by the likes of pundits like former "West Wing" TV writer/Dem operative Laurence O'Donnell (who wouldn't know a 28 gauge shotgun from a Lewinsky cigar) is undeniable... and central to this discussion.
I was under the impression that the Cafe IS the proper place for such topics, but if it's now deemed otherwise, then I'll respectfully defer and bow out. However, because my opinions are based on both close study AND ring-side experience in the gov't/political arena, I make no apologies for them.
Beyond that, a number of folks here (including you) have made some sound discussion points that reflect good awareness and merit broader consideration by CPFers of all stripes.
While politics is certainly not the central focus of CPF, the practical USE of our beloved flashlights is, inevitably, very much related to any discussion of firearms and Second Amendment rights, including hunting and self-defense. And that is the sub-surface nexus of some political animosities long a-boiling beneath the whole Cheney flap.
They won't be going away anytime soon. And, if you think I protest too much, call me back after the '08 elections... when "Assault Flashlight Control" legislation is proposed (For The Children, of course).
FlashInThePan
Enlightened
Hookd_On_Photons said:
For those who haven't read the article that Hookd_on_Photons linked to, I'd highly recommend it. Very interesting! Thanks for the link, and for helping keep this discussion fair and balanced!
nethiker
Enlightened
Good thread with some thoughtful comments.
I see that CNN has a full transcript of the Vice President's interview, looks like the VP addressed just about everything and pretty well IMHO.
Hope Mr. Whittington's health continues to improve.
I see that CNN has a full transcript of the Vice President's interview, looks like the VP addressed just about everything and pretty well IMHO.
Hope Mr. Whittington's health continues to improve.
Hookd_On_Photons
Enlightened
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 647
FlashInThePan: maybe I shouldn't have called the article "meta" journalism, and should have called it "quasi" journalism instead. Note that it does not cite primary sources (the doctor), it is a journalist's report about another journalist's report about a story.
Such instances of prominent people receiving extraordinary care that Joe Blow would not, are rather common. If the mayor of your town shows up in the ER complaining of chest pain, do you think he'll have to fill out a pile of forms and wait in line like anybody else?
In this case, the extra precautions might have been wise, considering that Mr. Whittington was found to have gone into atrial fibrillation, presumably because of a pellet that migrated to his heart.
I find the whole "pellet migrated to the heart" thing to be odd. I doubt the initial injury introduced the pellet into the pericardium or the heart directly, as the magnitude of that injury probably would have killed Mr. Whittington. I've read news reports that the pellet "entered an artery". That is inaccurate, as the pellet would have been carried away from the heart in the arterial tree. If anything, the pellet might have entered a vein and then embolized to the right atrium, where it lodged and irritated the heart enough to cause the arrhythmia.
Then again, it's possible Mr. Whittington already had asymptomatic paroxysmal a-fib that was only diagnosed because he was monitored following the accident.
In any case, I find it interesting that nobody seems to care that he seems to be recovering well. Some message boards I've perused had posts from members hoping that he would die, because it would be a nice juicy scandal for the VP to be tried for manslaughter.
I'm not a Bush apologist. The Elmer Fudd/**** Cheney pics I posted in this thread already demonstrate that. But for Pete's sake, **** Cheney is not pure evil and accidents happen.
Such instances of prominent people receiving extraordinary care that Joe Blow would not, are rather common. If the mayor of your town shows up in the ER complaining of chest pain, do you think he'll have to fill out a pile of forms and wait in line like anybody else?
In this case, the extra precautions might have been wise, considering that Mr. Whittington was found to have gone into atrial fibrillation, presumably because of a pellet that migrated to his heart.
I find the whole "pellet migrated to the heart" thing to be odd. I doubt the initial injury introduced the pellet into the pericardium or the heart directly, as the magnitude of that injury probably would have killed Mr. Whittington. I've read news reports that the pellet "entered an artery". That is inaccurate, as the pellet would have been carried away from the heart in the arterial tree. If anything, the pellet might have entered a vein and then embolized to the right atrium, where it lodged and irritated the heart enough to cause the arrhythmia.
Then again, it's possible Mr. Whittington already had asymptomatic paroxysmal a-fib that was only diagnosed because he was monitored following the accident.
In any case, I find it interesting that nobody seems to care that he seems to be recovering well. Some message boards I've perused had posts from members hoping that he would die, because it would be a nice juicy scandal for the VP to be tried for manslaughter.
I'm not a Bush apologist. The Elmer Fudd/**** Cheney pics I posted in this thread already demonstrate that. But for Pete's sake, **** Cheney is not pure evil and accidents happen.
DonShock
Flashlight Enthusiast
I think this whole situation has revealed more about Journalism than about the Vice President. All these Washington based reporters are up in arms that some podunk Texas newspaper was given the story before they were. Notice that there's almost no talk about how the victim was treated when the accident occurred, only abut how the News Media and the White House were informed. If the media had been informed immediately, the ambulance probably never would have reached the ER with all the camera trucks surrounding the place. If it were my Grandad, I would appreciate the privacy while waiting for the doctors to determine his condition and start treating him. The media seem to lose all human decency once they reach the national level, and sometimes earlier.
Sure, there was a hunting accident and it was Cheney's fault. In hindsite, there were probably opportunities to let the media know sooner. But the real story is the media's complete lack of understanding for "normal" people and how unbelievably offended they are when they are not the center of attention. The media always seems to have an undertone of superiority in their reporting. But to see such blatent self centered, arrogant, and vindictive behaviour by supposedly objective reporters is shocking. It kinda makes you wonder what they are like when the cameras aren't running.
Sure, there was a hunting accident and it was Cheney's fault. In hindsite, there were probably opportunities to let the media know sooner. But the real story is the media's complete lack of understanding for "normal" people and how unbelievably offended they are when they are not the center of attention. The media always seems to have an undertone of superiority in their reporting. But to see such blatent self centered, arrogant, and vindictive behaviour by supposedly objective reporters is shocking. It kinda makes you wonder what they are like when the cameras aren't running.
LowWorm
Enlightened
Off the top of my brain, leukos's and DonShock's posts really cut to the chase of the matter, and there are lots of other posters who have pointed out that the incident itself has become a means to other people's ends.
There are stories and meta stories, and the key is in discerning which is which.
The way the press aggrandized the Vince Foster suicide is very similar to what's being done now with Cheney. Political agendas abound in the media, which is not necessarily a bad thing if you can recognize that fact and apply common sense to your conclusions drawn from the coverage.
The conclusion that Cheney is reckless is a little rash; recklessness as a character trait usually doesn't restrict itself to a single incident, but is rather established as a behavioral pattern over time. One accident does not necessarily a reckless individual make.
The conclusion that Cheney is secretive or discrete is not entirely unfounded; from his track record as a politician, he's not exactly one to thrust his face into a microphone or camera for kicks. But this trait of the VPs was well established before the accident. Nothing especially new or indicting about Cheney's character has been revealed here. He's always had a certain disdain for the openness of the press, and I think that rankles some in the media.
The conclusion that Cheney is evil is just funny; I don't put evil past him (or anyone for that matter), but my gut hunch says that if were trying to kill his friend he'd use hitmen instead of pulling the trigger himself. Just seems more his style.
Overall conclusion is that this particular story isn't really about Cheney - it's about what people want it to be about, whether that be hunting safety, gun rights, the Bush administration's perceived indifference to "good press," the people's "right to know," or government secrecy.
There are stories and meta stories, and the key is in discerning which is which.
The way the press aggrandized the Vince Foster suicide is very similar to what's being done now with Cheney. Political agendas abound in the media, which is not necessarily a bad thing if you can recognize that fact and apply common sense to your conclusions drawn from the coverage.
The conclusion that Cheney is reckless is a little rash; recklessness as a character trait usually doesn't restrict itself to a single incident, but is rather established as a behavioral pattern over time. One accident does not necessarily a reckless individual make.
The conclusion that Cheney is secretive or discrete is not entirely unfounded; from his track record as a politician, he's not exactly one to thrust his face into a microphone or camera for kicks. But this trait of the VPs was well established before the accident. Nothing especially new or indicting about Cheney's character has been revealed here. He's always had a certain disdain for the openness of the press, and I think that rankles some in the media.
The conclusion that Cheney is evil is just funny; I don't put evil past him (or anyone for that matter), but my gut hunch says that if were trying to kill his friend he'd use hitmen instead of pulling the trigger himself. Just seems more his style.
Overall conclusion is that this particular story isn't really about Cheney - it's about what people want it to be about, whether that be hunting safety, gun rights, the Bush administration's perceived indifference to "good press," the people's "right to know," or government secrecy.
Last edited:
