Jason Pohl, Part 3: Wrong. Try Again.

We’re still awaiting Jason Pohl’s corrections regarding gun stats.

Recap: 7/11/17 I made this post, pointing out that Pohl’s remarks were based in lies.

Jason Pohl made no effort to correct his errors, but was overtaken with a bad case of #GunCog, poking fun at this blog’s founder, Joe Huffman. Yesterday I corrected Pohl, explaining that I’m not Joe Huffman, not a boy, etc.

Then, after a gun group sought accountability for Jason’s inaccuracies, Pohl tried to pohl a fast one, posting this to Twitter:

Twitter of Jason Pohl not being accountable

Reporter Jason Pohl tries to pohl a fast one.

I see, Jason. It’s not your fault. You’re just a reporter… who made an emotional tweet, based on falsities written by your USA TODAY colleague @npenzenstadler [Nick Penzenstadler]:

Screen cap of Coloradoan Reporter Jason Pohl's lies

Devastating l-i-e-s.

Jason, just fix it. Say you were incorrect. Recognize that you were wrong there and elsewhere. How are readers supposed to trust you on any topic, if you can’t admit your most glaring errors about guns?

Today you made darn sure to tweet about your ability create spreadsheets. Yawn. Your visual display of rows n’ columns doesn’t free you from admitting your wrongs. If anything, it demonstrates you’re able to read data and admit what’s right.

Jason Pohl tweets about an uninteresting spreadsheet

Jason Pohl spreads it.

#GunCog
#FakeNews
@Coloradoan
@ArizonaRepublic
@EricLarsen_News

9 thoughts on “Jason Pohl, Part 3: Wrong. Try Again.

  1. Stephanie, have you noticed that no one seems to care about your Quixotic little quest to give Pohl a drubbing, beyond yourself? I’d suggest turning off your Twitter feed and taking a nice walk in the woods or something.

    • No, I hadn’t noticed. Many people *do* care about correcting reporters, including guys like Jason Pohl.

      It’s okay if you don’t care.

      If you’re not interested in reading about Pohl, one solution might be to simply turn off.

      I won’t be offended. Nor will I notice.

  2. I care, and I admire the effort, but Stephanie; gentle correction. Gentle.

    Not that I have room to talk though– I’ve been as vociferous as any, often having taken pride in what I called my .blistering sarcasm”. While it can be fun, and may get cheers from the choir, I don’t believe it has the desired effect on the target. Not often. Rather it can cause the poor soul to dig in, eschew all reason and reply with naught but mockery, especially when he’s surrounded by peers of the same alliance.

    I’ve done a lot of that, and I’ll probably do it again, but I do realize that there are often better methods. The truth, delivered plainly, can stand on its own, without it being used to beat someone over the head until he bleeds. When truth is used deliberately to cause pain, it may be that it will be reflexively avoided (in a Pavlovian kind of sense) and eventually become the enemy.

    Again; this is in stark contrast to the methods I’ve used, and promoted, in the past. Yes, that makes me a hypocrite– I’m tired enough of the use of emotionalism, no matter the subject or cause, that I have to “come out” and admit it.

    “Hello. My name is Lyle, and I’m a sarcastiholic…”

  3. This is interesting. Give him a week, and Pohl might go all Clintonian on you, asking why you still bother with such old timeworn issues, wondering what it matters at this point in time….

    I say the calling out for his lies of commission and omission should continue until his morale, or at least morality, improves.

  4. Meh. This guy is a twat. I usually prefer to stick to arguing based on facts, or at least try to defend an opinion without ad hominems, but I don’t know that it’s possible with this guy.

    You’ve called him out for being a lazy, hyper, sensational fabulist, might as well leave it be.

  5. ::polite golf clap:: You go, ma’am.

    Your blog (well, you ARE a guest blogger), your space to do what you wish with. I’ll continue to visit.

  6. Actually, according to the CDC WISQARS inquiry tool here:
    https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

    There were 42 unintentional firearms deaths of children 12 and under, out of a population of 52,747,095 kids in that age range. It’s literally less than a one in a million chance. That’s amazingly low in a nation where 40% of households *ADMIT* to owning roughly 300 million guns.

    Oh, and it doesn’t break down how many happened because a kid got access to an unsecured gun, and how many happened because an adult did something stupid, so we know the number that happened because a kid found a gun *MUST* be lower than 42.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *