This lack of expertise applies to firearms as well, including discussions over the president's "skeet shooting" photo that the AP described in a short error-filled paragraph:
As already noted, it's a shotgun, not a rifle, and the gun isn't cocked but has just been fired. In addition, the president isn't wearing headphones but hearing protection; earmuffs would also be an accurate term. And although the "sunglasses" are tinted, it would be more correct to describe them as safety glasses.
But let's give credit where due: Obama is indeed wearing jeans and a dark blue, short-sleeved shirt. Superville is probably correct in deducing that it is a polo shirt, even though the placket is obscured by the president's left forearm. She may have a future on the fashion beat.
This is what we deal with in blogging on world events. As I've occasionally explained, I do indeed rely on the news industry to be able to blog about events that take place more than a couple hundred yards from my computer. Despite my complaints about their objectivity and knowledge, it is possible to gain an understanding of what is happening. The problem is, you need a good knowledge base of wars and military matters to properly interpret the reporting of someone who thinks anything big and green is a "tank" and who thinks that any loud bang that takes place within a couple hundred yards of their hotel room is an indication that the enemy is "resurgent."
I have that knowledge base to a large degree. I don't say that to boast. But if I don't have it after a double major BA in history and political science (international relations), a master's degree in history, a term in the Army National Guard, an addiction to following the news, a small number of published articles, and countless years spent reading or playing simulations about these issues, I've pretty much wasted my life's focus, and should restrict my blogging to kitchen adventures with my daughter and sporting events with my son, no?
Even with bad reporting from Iraq, there was so much that I could gain a sense of the fighting from the trends that I could perceive in the barrage of stories. I think the only times I worried were in the early phase of the Sadr-Sunni uprisings in early 2004 before it became clear the Iraqi security forces survived the onslought without critical failure; and the early 2007 period when I worried our surge would exhaust our patience to fight the war before the surge could show progress on the ground. Both were near-run things.
Indeed, I've complained that it is sometimes tough to get a feel for Afghanistan because there is no flood of reporting from there the way we had in Iraq. I sense things are going reaonably well, but my level of confidence isn't as high as with Iraq. In Syria, a have good confidence that Assad is losing. Even being away from the news for a week interrupts the "krill flow" of information that throws me off, as I've noted after vacations.
Not that I don't have holes in that knowledge base. I freely admit that on intelligence matters, for example, I lack the base to immediately notice something amiss from routine claims. And geographically I have holes gaps that can only be partially overcome with general knowledge that would apply to any situation.
But I do strive to fill holes as an issue drags on, as in Mali where my knowledge of West Africa is spotty, at best. I have more background on Libya, Algeria, and Chad (and France), so I was not just dropped into the middle of No and Where without some ability to orient myself.
And even in my core area, I would have done better to have looked up just what an SA-17 is rather than simply accept the reporting that the anti-aircraft missiles were intended for Hezbollah. Maybe they were going to Lebanon before Israel struck them, but I think I have cause to wonder just what the heck happened there because of just what the weapons are.
Anyway, this is a serious problem with the "profession" of our reporting class. If they didn't preen themselves by pretending to the ability to analyze and place in context for the ignorant masses the foreign happenings they cover rather than just giving us the who, what, when, where, and why in pure news stories (as opposed to separate opinion or analysis pieces) this failing wouldn't be as much of a problem as it is.
But this inability to just do the basics is a lesson I learned early on when my older brothers (twins) were written up in the paper and the quotes from them were completely made up.
When it comes to our press corps, trust but verify is necessary advice. Even when it comes to presidential skeet shooting photos. It's sad when the fashion knowledge base is greater than the substantive knowledge. But that problem has never hindered a career in our press corps.
