Major Media's Fine Job Of Confusing Everyone About Boston Suspects
from the facts-of-the-matter dept
The death of journalism and fact-checking has long been the mantra of the major media in response to so-called internet journalism (which should just be called journalism, by the way). This, despite the fails of major media and the wins by journalistic websites, reveals a sort of paternal arrogance on the part of the still-major players in traditional reporting. It's always interesting when the roles are massively reversed, which was on full display in the Boston Marathon bombing aftermath.Deadspin notes, with a hysterically cut up video montage, the full failure of major media reporting on possible suspects in the aftermath.
We thought we'd condense today's mess of media reporting into something easily consumable for the crowd that may have been working and thus wasn't privy to the disaster taking place on television airwaves. Here, then, are your trusted news sources reporting, misreporting, backtracking, and scapegoating their way through the day.You have to see the video for yourself, which I frustratingly can't seem to find an embed for, to have the magnitude of mistakes and misreporting fully hit home. In a matter of hours, major news sources reported that a suspect was about to be arrested, had been arrested, was of brown-skin, white-skin, was taken by U.S. Marshals, then wasn't arrested, then was re-arrested and was on his way to the courthouse, was then again un-arrested, culminating with the reporting that no suspect was even known by name, let alone arrested. In fact, there are times when the supposed fact-checking media can go even further and splash the pictures of people they claim are suspects on their front page, who definitely are not, for no apparent reason beyond that which seems to be they are brown-skinned. It's enough to take one's breath away.
Now, it should be noted that this isn't to suggest that news sources on the internet aren't capable of misreporting as well. Media, in general, is subject to a drive to draw attention by having the latest information, which often results in a rush to report what hasn't been verified. But that is a characteristic of media, not traditional media or internet media. Just media. On the other hand, if you want the most extensive available investigation into the matter, your best choice isn't the television or the papers, but Reddit, which has organized their own crowd-sourced investigation. That's the power of the internet.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: boston marathon bombing, journalism, reporting, speculation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It is sad.
Also a pertinent comment: and they want us to throw money to see behind their paywalls for that prime quality. Thanks but Reddit does it much better and for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop right there!
No one ever has to prove their fucking innocence. Every person in every fucking one of these pictures is innocent until there is enough evidence to prove guilt. It doesn't work the other way around.
This should be obvious. And yet ppl have to be told that to stop and think.
Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/findbostonbombers/comments/1clwnx/list_of_innocent_suspects_evidence_at_each _site/c9hrt0c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently you've never been taken to court for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He probably works for RIAA or the MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No shit. Masnick does it every time he writes a headline. But I guess that's ok because only sometimes he "does journalism"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now watch the video.
Now re-read the headline to this article.
Has Mike screwed up the headline?
Or are you full of shit...again?
BTW...Mike has screwed up a few times on headlines, but it is far, very far, from every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was quite a convenient mass journalistic fail for the Senators who at the same time voted away their insider-trader restrictions, and the House where the CISPA dog and pony were finally unveiled and started playing pinata with a paper mache made from the original constitution.
Major media certainly is convenient and reliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the Internet's fault!
Can anyone tell my why NPR runs commericals? I guess they have a different definition of "Public" than I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the Internet's fault!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the Internet's fault!
Unless your just making an obscure joke about defending the majors as being paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a new type of news service
Things that are not "real news" but which you'll be inundated with if you just scan the media for stories on a topic like the bombings, or search Google News:
* Another attention-seeking talking head weighing in with speculation and punditry on some channel or another. These don't actually have anything new to add in the way of facts, and are generally either attention whoring or trying to sell someone something (if there's even a difference).
An *expert*'s opinions, where new, might qualify as "real news". For example, an FBI profiler or forensic psychologist speculating about the perpetrator, or NTSB folks giving a preliminary statement about the likely cause of a crash, or whatever. Someone who knows their stuff. If the speaker's job description is "forensic" something, or otherwise is technical, and he has a degree in something outside business or law, then maybe. If the speaker's only degrees (if any) are in business or law and their job description is "politician", "anchorman", "editor", "correspondent", or similarly, then no. From those I'm not interested in hearing much beyond a statement of new facts.
* Random kooks with pet theories or manifestos of their own. (Mostly an Internet issue, but traditional media sometimes briefly interview such people, presumably for the audience to laugh at.)
* Announcements that some statement, opinion, news coverage, or whatever will be "forthcoming". A "news story" that the chief of police is expected to hold a press conference at noon is neither news nor a story. For that matter, neither is the press conference itself, unless they have new forensic information or an arrest or something to announce.
* In that vein, announcements from officials that assure everyone that they are continuing to investigate and will have more information whenever. "We interrupt your regular programming to inform you that the FBI is continuing to do the FBI's job."
* Any political fluff that doesn't matter. "Doesn't matter" means anything that doesn't involve specific policy decisions, legislation, declarations of emergency, or other actual acts of government. If the Senate has introduced a bill to require background checks to buy pressure cookers, that's news. If the President is speechifying about how awful a thing this is, and the FBI will be doing their job by investigating it, and etc., that's not news.
Is there any news service out there like that already, which gives subject-specific feeds that are free of all the posturing, speechifying, attention-whoring, and other BS that inevitably clutters up the reporting about these kinds of things and gives just the really salient and significant new news?
If not, how do we build one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a new type of news service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real nightmare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox News...
I have given up listening to speculative reporting. I wait for the actual words coming out of the mouth of the investigators. I atleast think their theories will be more realistic. not saying much I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link?
http://deadspin.a.ec.viddler.com/deadspin_1xj8ouutpu1e21q1vt7ou5lb0s1ira.mp4?fd9f2a1c1 4aadf1069f046c167f41e2b360f1178af15bbf77dab5bfe93057d54d9dcc8c9d5507f40676e59a9fe93454a733675a80fce2 612b56d40d1e8db4192fef23f534d170391ea06&ec_rate=231&ec_prebuf=10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is one known fact at least...the bomb casings were merely pressure cookers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this day of Internet access our best news sources might be from the witnesses themselves. These first hand accounts are the best and worst information sources. What was in any public Boston area blogs?
Its good that we can have first hand accounts of events (tragic or good) can be read almost instantaneously along with pictures and videos. Reddit seems like its more reliable than the evening news or morning newspapers.
Its not uncommon that witnesses just aren't paying attention until after the fact/event/occurrence. They are busy doing their own things and not looking. Its hard to be a good witness and many people cant ever remember if a stoplight was red, green and even mix up the progression of vehicles. Such is the quality of eyewitnesses.
Androgynous Cowherd's comment of “Random kooks” kind of fits another social phenomena thats hard to pin down.
Its also hard to estimate what effects a perpetrator's lies will have. How good their alibi stands and story sound. Especially if the suspect has enough money to defend themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daily Show
Bababooey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cynic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]