Fabulism and ungood speak

NPR’s reporting added [emphasis added], “It’s a weapon built for war. And when fired into a human adult body, its bullets travel with such fierce velocity that they can decapitate a person … ”

This is quite the claim, that an AR-15 can “decapitate a person.” It’s a big claim because AR-15s are most commonly chambered for .223-caliber rounds. In layman’s terms: bullets the efficiency and power of which are a matter of dispute in hunting communities within the U.S. (you would not, for example, rely on a .223 to take down a bear, and there is an argument over whether the .223 is powerful or accurate enough for even deer-hunting). Perhaps a decapitation could happen with a .223 round, but most likely by a freak accident. Not exactly by design, as suggested by NPR.

But perhaps NPR was talking about some of the larger, more powerful AR-15-specific cartridges that have only recently been made available. Funny story about that.

The NPR report hyperlinks to an article published by the Intercept. The Intercept, for its part, links to a Gawker article, which cites as its sole source for the “decapitation” claim an anecdote drawn from a report published in the early 1960s by the Defense Technical Information Center. In the report, which studied the AR-15 as a suitable weapon for the South Vietnamese army, the Defense Technical Information Center claimed a Ranger fired three .223 rounds from an AR-15 at a Vietcong soldier. The report claims one round took the Vietcong soldier’s head “completely off.” Another bullet, the report added, took the same soldier’s arm “completely” off.

Look, I’m not saying anyone is lying, but I find this single anecdote difficult to believe. A .50-caliber rifle, maybe, but a .223 round fired from an AR-15?

The claim on its face is a difficult one to believe, and this is even before we get into the question of sourcing. The decapitation claim comes from a single anecdote from the conflict in Vietnam. It was repeated later by Gawker, then by the Intercept, and then once more by NPR.

Many newsrooms repeating the same anecdote from a report published in the early 1960s does not necessarily make it true. And this is to say nothing of the question of the caliber used in said anecdote.

Now, this isn’t to downplay the lethality of the AR-15. Rather, it’s a desperate plea for accuracy. If we’re going to have a national debate about gun policy and regulation, we have to understand what it is we’re seeking to regulate. If newsrooms and activists insist on embellishment and fabulism, then we’ll never get out of the “definition of terms” portion of the debate.

Ungood Speak 

We’ve entered an extremely disturbing and dangerous phase in the culture wars.

The BBC published a report wherein it altered, without warning or notice, the testimony of an alleged rape victim so as to honor the preferred pronouns of her alleged assailant, a transgender woman. This is not just bad journalism (it is never acceptable to amend verbatim quotes with no editor’s note or explanation). This is obscene.

The woman referred to her alleged attacker repeatedly as “him,” but the BBC quietly edited her quotes to avoid “misgendering” the accused, the Times of London reported last week.

The woman’s remarks came amid a larger report by the BBC regarding lesbian women who claim they’ve been coerced into having sex with transgender women. Three women spoke with the BBC. One of these women claimed she was raped during an encounter with a transgender woman.

“The woman referred to her alleged rapist as ‘him’ but insiders said that her words were changed to avoid ‘misgendering’ the abuser in an article on the corporation’s website,” the Times of London reports. “The BBC article replaced every reference to ‘he’ or ‘him’ with ‘they’ or ‘them.’ A source said the quote was the subject of heated debate prior to publication. Some journalists argued that the quote should remain intact, while others said it should reflect the trans woman’s preferred she/her pronouns.”

The woman told the BBC verbatim: “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so he was a ‘woman’ even if every fiber of my being was screaming throughout, so I agreed to go home with him. He used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing his penis and raped me.”

However, here is how the woman’s remarks appear in the final BBC report, “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a ‘woman’ even if every fiber of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me.”

A source told the Times of London that “woke ideology” is to blame for the BBC’s editorial decision.

“They were originally all-male references but the woke bros at the news website wanted to make them female because of misgendering,” the source said. “It’s quite shocking. I can’t think of any other situation where we would change the words of an alleged rape victim.”

The BBC, for its part, defended the decision by saying, “It’s routine to have editorial discussions about different stories. Our only intention when deciding on language is to make things as clear as possible for audiences.”

Yes, changing “he” and “him” to “they” and “them” in a story about a woman being raped by a person with a penis undoubtedly made things clearer for readers.

Becket Adams is the program director of the National Journalism Center.