Personally, I’d Sue
Bob Owens has made what I think is an extremely significant catch. The Associated Press printed a story in which they claim an anonymous police source told them that some of the magazines used by the Virginia Tech killer were purchased at Dick's Sporting Goods. Then another Newspaper took it a step further and quotes an anonymous police source as saying magazines were purchased at both Dick's and at Wal-Mart. (Bob says New York Times, but the link comes up to the San Francisco Chronicle).
These are flat lies. Not misstatements, lies. Neither store carries magazines for pistols. Period. Bob checked.
I called the Dick's locations in Christiansburg and Roanoke this evening and I spoke with employees in the hunting department (called "the Lodge"). They confirmed what I already knew from visiting Dick's locations in New York and North Carolina over the past five years; while the chain carries ammunition, they've never carried pistols or pistol magazines.
I spoke with the young lady in the sporting good department of the Christiansburg Walmart, which took a bit longer than the Dick's calls. I had to first explain to her that when I was asking about "pistol magazines" I was not talking about handgun-related periodicals. Once that point was clarified, I confirmed that Walmart do not sell ammunition holding devices for pistols, either.
Two of the nation's top news organizations are telling hundreds of thousands of news consumers demonstrable lies because journalists were/are too lazy to spend the minimal amount of time it takes (three calls in five minutes) to fact-check an anonymous source regarding claims made about two huge retail store chains and their role in this nation's largest mass murder shooting.
If the media is this lazy investigating the facts of the largest mass shooting in American history just a little more than one week after it occurred, I can only imagine how little effort they put into more pedestrian stories.
If I were in a position of authority at either retailer, I would be screaming - through some very high priced legal talent - for an immediate, high-profile retraction. Or I would damn sure try to sue the hell out of the media that printed this. Because this crosses into malicious. These allegations can be shown to be untrue with very little effort. That has a really good chance for rising above the "absent malice" standard.
By Ali, Saturday, 28 April , 2007 @ 6:32 am
Don’t forget… once they even said Ebay.