ColonelAngus
Diamond Member
- Feb 25, 2015
- 66,175
- 75,078
- 3,615
Washington Post Snubs, Hides NRA's Offer to Shoot with Suppressors for Firsthand Experience
WASHINGTON POST EDITED A LETTER THEY PRINTED FROM THE NRA.
Liberals JUST LOVE to misrepresent the truth..
The NRA-ILA’s Chris Cox was allowed to respond with his own letter, which WaPo published on June 5. However, WaPo editors deleted this line: “If the editorial board had accepted NRA’s invitation to a suppressor shoot last week, they would have heard for themselves that the Hearing Protection Act is exactly what its title claims: An act that protects hearing.”
According to the Washington Examiner, WaPo admitted editing out the line when asked. WaPo’s editors said, “We reserve the right to edit letters. As part of our normal process, we share edited letters with letter-writers at least twice in the process (including a final edited version).” The problem here is that WaPo did not edit out a superfluous line that ought not to have been there in the first place. Rather, they took out the line that pulled the covers back on the fact that they had rejected the opportunity to go the NRA event and learn how suppressors actually work. And then, after rejecting that opportunity, had railed against pending suppressor regulation and the NRA.
WASHINGTON POST EDITED A LETTER THEY PRINTED FROM THE NRA.
Liberals JUST LOVE to misrepresent the truth..
The NRA-ILA’s Chris Cox was allowed to respond with his own letter, which WaPo published on June 5. However, WaPo editors deleted this line: “If the editorial board had accepted NRA’s invitation to a suppressor shoot last week, they would have heard for themselves that the Hearing Protection Act is exactly what its title claims: An act that protects hearing.”
According to the Washington Examiner, WaPo admitted editing out the line when asked. WaPo’s editors said, “We reserve the right to edit letters. As part of our normal process, we share edited letters with letter-writers at least twice in the process (including a final edited version).” The problem here is that WaPo did not edit out a superfluous line that ought not to have been there in the first place. Rather, they took out the line that pulled the covers back on the fact that they had rejected the opportunity to go the NRA event and learn how suppressors actually work. And then, after rejecting that opportunity, had railed against pending suppressor regulation and the NRA.
