Never a good thing for the world, and in Japan of all places.
Waking up to this news. It’s nuts that this news is from Japan, and to Abe of all people. He was out of politics now right? Or was he back in and running for something?
In the videos I’ve seen there’s a lot of smoke - like he’d been shot by a musket. So a home made gun sounds feasible…
Explosive devices found at the alleged assassin’s home.
And from still images at BBC, the gun does appear to be a super-sketchy homemade firearm.
The NY Times remains egregious:
Assuming this is a real picture the thing I can’t get over is that lady standing there in the background with her hands behind her back (seems to be post-shooting).
“Ho-hum, another political assassination.”
Also the water bottle in the guy’s pants pocket. Gotta stay hydrated!
That was literally based on the first reports coming from the scene, though, and the NYT weren’t the only ones reporting the story that way – that’s how a number of news orgs last night originally broke the story while trying to confirm an assassin was the culprit.
“Apparently shot” gets it done. NY Times is the worst.
Except in the immediate aftermath, no one was quite exactly sure. The “gun” didn’t sound like most guns because it was likely a home-made weapon – much deeper sound, and almost like a firework going off, including the smoke. In fact, that’s what some initial reports from those at the scene were saying, that a loud device had gone off and Abe collapsed as a result.
They constantly revised and updated the story and headline throughout the evening as information came out.
Within minutes of the attack, the Times had their Tokyo bureau chief talking to persons who were at the event and within a few feet of Abe when the attack occurred.
I think there’s often plenty of things to take the Times to issue for, but this isn’t one of them. They often can move with extreme cautious-ness at times on big stories like this, but that’s their DNA going back more than 200 years. Reporting a major political assassination, I can understand an overnight International/World editor demanding some confirmation on what might’ve exactly have happened. Especially when within 75 minutes they’d updated their reportage to reflect “apparently shot, attacker in custody.”
Nah.
10 minutes before the NY Times tweet:
The initial two NY Times tweets are paraphrases of the first two NHK tweets on the subject. They even say that they are quoting NHK (the “public broadcaster”) The literal translation is pretty close to what the NY Times put out:
#1 - [Breaking News JUST IN] Former Prime Minister Abe collapses [#nhk_news in Nara City during a speech]
#2 - At around 11:30 am on the 8th, former Prime Minister Abe, who was giving a speech in Nara City, collapsed. According to an NHK reporter who was interviewing the site, former Prime Minister Abe was bleeding and heard something like a gunshot. Interview with former Prime Minister Abe ↓ ↓
So the NY Times did or didn’t do their own reporting?
Even without the demonstrably atrocious history the NY Times has framing shootings, that headline is simply a failure of language. Other, more competent news organizations didn’t seem to have a problem reporting the event.
“Reports say that Shinzo Abe allegedly experienced shortness of breath related to contact with a projectile exploded in his direction yesterday and was taken off the stage.”
Edit: Patrick pulling zero punches.
Oh good grief. She could just leave it at the first sentence.
Bleak, but a necessary part of Abe’s story to reflect on.
Their initial tweet was not based on their own reporting. Which is why they attribute the statement to “[Japan’s] public broadcaster”. If the initial tweet was based off their own reporting, it would not include those words.
So maybe don’t tweet and let news organizations that can report, and already have, do the job.
Because it is a major, major news story. It is worth reporting even if that reporting is amplification and just citing the news reports of others with more information. That’s news 101.
They had a reporter immediately working on eyewitness accounts within minutes of the story breaking.
Maybe they should have cited other sources with more information then instead of whatever they did vomit out there.
Clearly, their on the scene reporter was a step behind, and the best editorial could do in lieu of any info was that mangled tweet?
So now I have a lower opinion than I did 3 hours ago. They have the specter of framing shootings to cover those in power, but also, they can’t write headlines or get quick accurate news out. Thank goodness the Guardian reporter, and everyone who saw Abe bleeding from his chest weren’t equally confounded.