Slashdot Mirror
Did Tech Websites Exploit the Boston Marathon Bombing?
Nerval's Lobster writes "These days, when something in the world goes very wrong, it seems as if everybody learns about it first on Twitter and Facebook. In the minutes after homemade bombs turned the finish line of the Boston Marathon into a crime scene, terms such as #BostonMarathon shot to the top of Twitter's Trends list; across the country, office workers first learned of the attack when someone posted a message on a Facebook page. Social networks have become this generation's radio, the default conduit for the freshest information. As first responders treated the wounded and the minutes ticked past, news organizations began vacuuming up Twitter and Facebook posts from around Boston and posting it on their Websites, along with 'regular' text updates. A Vine video-snippet of a bomb going off near the finish line, knocking a runner off his feet, ended up embedded into dozens of blog postings. When a disaster strikes, and many of those same news Websites post 'live updates' that incorporate tons of social-networking posts, they face accusations of exploiting the tragedy in the name of pageviews and revenue. That's not surprising—long before 'yellow journalism' became a term, people have charged news organizations with playing up humanity's worst for their own gain. In the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombings, online pundits lashed out against Mashable, The Verge, Wired, and other publications that had posted live updates, accusing them of stepping outside their usual coverage areas for cynical gain. In the following piece, a number of tech editors-in-chief, including The Verge's Joshua Topolsky and Mashable's Lance Ulanoff, talk about their approaches to covering the tragedy."
"Some Websites that posted “live updates” faced accusations of exploiting the tragedy in the name of pageviews and revenue." ??
Each time a disaster happens, we're FLOODED with the same info, repeated over and over... on TV and Internet...
So can I ask something : What's the difference between a website and a channel, such as Fox/CBC/CNN/etc !?
Why only the "Websites" and not every damn TV channel that broadcast the same ****ing news all day long?
ty.
No wonder there was so much misinformation. First there was 1 dud bomb that didn't go off, then there were 5. Then there were none.
This is all social media's doing.
... most news agencies are for-profit entertainment businesses, rather than public service organizations.
Profit is good. What's wrong with what they (purportedly) did? We need to foster innovation in news. If no one pursued profit, what revolutionary developments in soundbite and factoid technology will go missed?
The idea that tech blogs can cover stories about tech, but should leave coverage of serious political and human issues to the "big boys" of traditional media, is ridiculous. There is no special license needed to write about serious and important topics, only the usual requirement that the reporting be genuinely in the public interest. Presenting information from social networks, as long as it is labelled as such and not misrepresented as certain fact, is in no way improper. If people are interested in reading about that information, there is nothing wrong with providing it, and if tech blogs feel that because of their focus, they are especially able to do this, then they should.
But quite sure slashdot doing it.
I'm a marathon runner, and the first I heard about this was from friends inquiring if I knew anybody there. I can't conceive of what earthly good this information would have done them (perhaps they wanted to offer me some sort of comfort if I had) but I do know that whatever it is, people are fascinated by the tragedies and want to know everything they can the soonest they can.
So I can hardly blame news companies for giving people the fastest information that they can. They're not so much "exploiting" the tragedy as giving people what it is they're craving (or at least, the closest substitute they can get to it, the unverified raw data stream). I don't think it's doing them any good (that's a different rant) but they're not forcing this on people. They're doing what people ask them to do.
In what way did news coverage make things worse? If a huge crowd of cameramen were to obstruct the way of emergency vehicles I would understand the uproar, but absent that I fail to see what damage could journalism possibly cause.
It's no fault of social media that they are more timely and have more information than local / national news organizations. People want to get the info so they turn to whatever source they can. I don't see it as some crass opportunism to increase page count. It's simply social media sites deliver what the people want more quickly than anybody else.
across the country, office workers first learned of the attack when someone posted a message on a Facebook page.
I have no idea if this is true or not, but unfortunately I believe it.
People waste so much paid work time on Facebook. Why don't they put it to productive use, and post on Slashdot instead?
#DeleteChrome
People made calls and sent texts immediately. This affects their monthly bill. Based on this TFS's reasoning, should we not see AT&T and Sprint as exploiting the tragedy as well?
It doesn't particularly matter if they were trying to exploit it or not since they just can't do non-tech major breaking news reporting as good as the big boys.
Take The Verge, for example, who seem to not grasp the simple concept that if you're going to try and live blog, you write from the bottom up to allow for rapid F5'ing. Mashable's content is no better than one going to Twitter and typing "Boston" in the search box.
If you want to exploit something, you need to give them reason to stick around while you fleece them for ad dollars... I clicked off the tech sites and went to CNN and the Wall Street Journal (the latter, to me, had superior coverage).
As first responders treated the wounded and the minutes ticked past, news organizations began vacuuming up Twitter and Facebook posts from around Boston and posting it on their Websites, along with 'regular' text updates. A Vine video-snippet of a bomb going off near the finish line, knocking a runner off his feet, ended up embedded into dozens of blog postings. When a disaster strikes, and many of those same news Websites post 'live updates' that incorporate tons of social-networking posts, they face accusations of exploiting the tragedy in the name of pageviews and revenue.
So, wait, are talking about "tech websites" or "traditional journalists" here? Because when I first heard about the explosions (from Twitter, naturally), I went to boston.com - which was in some kind of "low bandwidth" mode where they front page was only showing tweets related to the explosions.
"Traditional" media throughout the aftermath referenced tweets. NPR referenced the Boston Police Department's Twitter feed for updates. Local TV stations turned to Twitter, Vine, and YouTube to find videos of the explosion.
I guess only tech websites aren't "allowed" to mine Twitter? Because from what I could tell, everyone was doing that, from print to radio to TV to the web.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
legitimized with an editorial?
Traditional news sites repost content from social networks and blog sites, and then traditional media blames social networks and blog sites for exploiting tragedy and the errors they themselves repeated.
Who fucking cares what they think. You should be attacking them directly, not defending yourselves with equivocation about page views and advertising. Newspapers and TV news have ads too, and their websites are even more obnoxious with them.
Just like Slashdot is by posting a non story for clicks.
I didn't want to be scolded in twitter for being heartless, so I haven't expressed my concerns: will someone take this issue up as a reactionary justification for stricter internet regulation (CISPA) a la PATRIOT act? We all know the pudding inside politicians heads is only capable of reaction, be it to money or tragedy. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the nuttier of the gun nuts say the recent shootings are a conspiracy-- screw it, I'll say it: YOU'LL HAVE TO PRY THE INTERNET FROM MY COLD DEAD CARPAL TUNNEL SUFFERING HANDS. /crazy
I find it ironic that I found out about the bombs on slashdot first.
I rather says something profound, but the actual lesson is left as an exercise for the poster...
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Then let us all be glad they didn't read that first and cook up a batch of dioxygen difluoride to use.
If people would simply put, "it is reported" in tweets instead of "it is confirmed" (when it is not), we could really cut down on a lot of misinformation.
If The Verge, Slashdot, Wired or, heck, Gizmag want to write about the explosion - it is their 1st Amendment right to do so. Same goes for the National Enquirer, STAR, or any of the other tabloid journals. This isn't any different than WSJ, NYT, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Al Jazeera, etc. can write about tech items, happiness, tragedy, cat getting stuck in a tree or anything else considered newsworthy.
Each outlet will be judged by how well they do their job, and will receive an appropriate reputation.
Since our news organizations are a combination of subscriber and advertiser revenue based, they have to write according to their generating said revenue.
We can either just deal with the situation as it stands or have state-run news organizations. I really don't think anyone would be comfortable with the latter as even approaching truthfulness or integrity in the long term.
If the 'Big Boys' don't like the upstarts encroaching on their turf - all I can say is.. too bad.
And revoke their "Press" privileges : the access passes,etc if they exceed a specified number (and maybe grade) of "inaccuracy events"
Their job is to present facts and not opinions, so this should be relatively easy to implement
If they did that, the only news would be "Explosions reported at Boston Marathon, check back next month for details when we tell you what the authorities want you to know".
Without news crews on the ground, people would only get one side of the story, after it has been sanitized by the government. A terrorist attack (or disaster) is chaotic, even authoritative sources will sometimes release inaccurate or incomplete information. Independent witnesses interviewed at the scene will sometimes have wildly different versions of the events depending on their vantage point and own personal experience.
I don't know how the news media can be graded on accuracy of facts when the facts themselves are in dispute even among official sources.
It is also quite incorrect. It claims that a consumer-grade cooker won't go above 2 atm. That's patently absurd. If you block the exit and the safety valve fails, the pressure can easily reach a level that the metal will burst.
But that's if the safety valve fails. Well, the best course of action in any operation is to never assume that the safety valve will work properly and to never push the envelope where it has to work to keep you alive.
Even if the safety valve functions, the hole it opens is limited in size. If the amount of heat being applied creates the pressure more rapidly than it can be released by the safety valve, you still get enough pressure to rupture the vessel. Using black powder as the pressure generation source would most likely create enough pressure fast enough, and if one of those ball bearing happened to block the safety valve hole, you suddenly have no safety valve.
Along with assuming the safety valve functions properly, there is the assumption that the pressure vessel has not been compromised. Stress fractures or damage to the vessel can create a weakness that can rupture.
And that, dear reader, means that the worst that can happen in a normal kitchen is that it can, indeed, explode and kill you.
Did tech websites glom onto the tragedy too much?
Yes.
Now stop talking about it, my cousin Allison is in surgery for her knee for the second day, and I want you to talk about something else.
Like dinosaur quizzes, or how you may be able to treat atherosclerosis with a common drug.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Nerval's Lobster has a correction for the original post.
"I must apologize for calling any of these outlets "news organizations" , I was incorrect. Now back to regularly scheduled programming. "
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Didn't Slashdot do the exact same thing yesterday?
On the other hand, not saying anything seems callous, so you're damned no matter what you do.
Proverbs 21:19
That xkcd does not include instructions on how to make such a bomb. It doesn't mention black powder at all, or ball bearings.
It is also quite incorrect. It claims that a consumer-grade cooker won't go above 2 atm. That's patently absurd. If you block the exit and the safety valve fails, the pressure can easily reach a level that the metal will burst.
I think most modern pressure cookers are designed so the gasket between the lid and the pot will give way and leak pressure before the metal pot explodes so you'd have to have a failure of the pressure valve, the pressure release safety valve *and* the gasket. Older pressure cookers often didn't have that that gasket level of safety, so a failure of the pressure valve and safety *could* result in explosion.
But that's if the safety valve fails. Well, the best course of action in any operation is to never assume that the safety valve will work properly and to never push the envelope where it has to work to keep you alive.
Isn't that pretty much the normal use-case for the pressure cooker. The normal pressure valve is typically small and relatively easily clogged, so everytime you use it, you're counting on the safety release valve being there just in case the primary pressure release becomes clogged. If there wasn't that extra safety valve, people would be afraid to cook anything but plain water to prevent clogging the pressure valve.
Even if the safety valve functions, the hole it opens is limited in size. If the amount of heat being applied creates the pressure more rapidly than it can be released by the safety valve, you still get enough pressure to rupture the vessel. Using black powder as the pressure generation source would most likely create enough pressure fast enough, and if one of those ball bearing happened to block the safety valve hole, you suddenly have no safety valve.
Safety valve or no, a big enough explosive is going to rupture the device, but that's well outside of the normal operating conditions of a pressure cooker - a household stove can only put so much energy into the pressure cooker and a 1cm hole can let out an awful lot of steam.
Along with assuming the safety valve functions properly, there is the assumption that the pressure vessel has not been compromised. Stress fractures or damage to the vessel can create a weakness that can rupture.
And that, dear reader, means that the worst that can happen in a normal kitchen is that it can, indeed, explode and kill you.
Yeah, that's the worst case, but you're probably more likely to die from your stove leaking natural gas into your house than having a modern pressure cooker explode.
Sorry, Betteridge, but I have to agree with this headline. When I first learned of the bombing, I attempted to get to footage of the live feed. When I clicked on the link, I was treated to an upbeat commercial with two guys joking around and playing guitar in an attempt to sell Geico insurance. I thought there must be some mistake because no one in their right mind would force a viewer to watch commercials before getting news about a tragedy, but sure enough the live feed proceeded after the commercial. Humanity has commercialized tragedy much sooner than I expected.
And I'm especially suspicious of wild-ass conspiracy theories that would require the cooperation of a massive number of players. Sure, a half dozen people could know about attacks and keep it secret. But enough people to significantly move the national exchange averages and world gold market (without all the sales coming from a suspiciously tiny number of sources), all conspiring together to keep a terrorist attack secret? Not a single whistle-blower unnerved by the thought of murdering civilians who might call in a tip in advance? Your blind paranoia, and deep misunderstanding of how actual institutions work, is astounding.
Thing is... unless there is some risk to me, or my family or friends are involved, I wouldn't mind only hearing about things once the details are worked out.
Granted, I do not want a sanitized version, but you can still collect what facts you can at the time of the event and then take the time to put the pieces together and release an independent analysis later.
The only need for immediate news is if that news serves some purpose to you other than just gaping at spectacle. If anything, I think this sort of "News Now" mentality does quite directly contribute to terrorism and things like school shootings because it guarantees the attention that the perpetrators desire more than anything. If someone blows someone else up and no one ever hears about it, it's not a very effective demonstration.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't get news of this sort of thing at the time of, but the 24hr news cycle means that it gets done with all sorts of speculation, fearmongering and rampant emotionalism that pretty much renders a reasoned discussion of the steps to take difficult, not to mention fueling ridiculous conspiracy theories that actually show up due to discrepancies caused by jumping to conclusions by media outlets that people tend to trust.
No tech "journalists" did not. The media did.
One thing wrong about this is taking people on Twitter's word for it. Twitter and other social networks are the web equivalent of everyone shouting OMG ponies except it's not ponies.....
Gorkman
Which was a cool article, but did not describe any good way to make a portable bomb a pressure cooker. It did, however, describe very well how you could kill yourself and everyone in your kitchen by using it as part of your chemistry set.
And I'm especially suspicious of wild-ass conspiracy theories that would require the cooperation of a massive number of players. Sure, a half dozen people could know about attacks and keep it secret. But enough people to significantly move the national exchange averages and world gold market (without all the sales coming from a suspiciously tiny number of sources), all conspiring together to keep a terrorist attack secret? Not a single whistle-blower unnerved by the thought of murdering civilians who might call in a tip in advance? Your blind paranoia, and deep misunderstanding of how actual institutions work, is astounding.
Are you sure "wild-ass conspiracy theory" is the right term, since a) I'm pointing to actual events that could be investigated, and b) I'm not stating that it happened that way, only that some investigation would be prudent?
Also, is "blind paranoia" the appropriate term, since c) I'm not especially afraid, emotional, or irrational and I'm not trying to make others feel afraid?
If you're so astounded, then tell me how actual institutions work. Allay my suspicions and reassure me by using logic and reference (also acceptable: opinion backed by experience and scholarship).
A troll wouldn't be able to do that. Can you?
Suspend their First Amendment rights... is it really worth the cost of a lengthy trial for this or should we just let people determine for themselves whom to trust?
Do we also shut down Mother Jones, Sierra Club and PETA on the same grounds?
Great. Check back in a few months and you'll have all that. You can even use that to compare how all the organizations did during the vent itself and determine which ones were most accurate most quickly and after a few of these you might start seeing a pattern and then you could use that information to decide which organizations might be worth listening to during the next event. Or not.
Not provide as much coverage out of a sense of good taste?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I agree, a troll would not be able to allay your suspicions. Nor might any entirely rational and intelligent response; arguing with "birthers" or young-earth-creationists is similarly futile. Nonetheless, I'll make one brief attempt:
1) some classes of conspiracy are only amenable operation withing small tight-knit groups of "true believer" participants;
2) typical terrorist attacks are in this class: while there may be a huge number of after-the-fact "sympathizers," actual operational knowledge is kept within a very small "cell" of participants, because
3) spreading the existence of such plans to more than a tiny number of participants rapidly increases chances of intelligence leaks, with disastrous consequences for all conspirators involved.
5) while world wealth is strongly concentrated, it still takes a large number of players to swing world financial markets;
6) and, with the visibility of the pre-attack market swing, the "conspirators" are also drawing attention to themselves, thus need to ask the protection of an overwhelming majority of all other agents (financial regulators, journalists, other analysts) who might expose them.
7) this separates the "wild-ass conspiracy theory" from a "reasonable conspiracy theory" about the conspiracy of a small "cell" of players.
8) There are alternate mechanisms through which large numbers of investors/governments/journalists appear to "conspire," but these have different characteristics from "plunge the stock market with a terrorist attack";
9) for example, the world power elite may "conspire" to install brutal dictators in coups, and other acts of murder-for-money;
10) however, in these cases there is a generally benefit, or lack of substantial harm, to the entire wealthy class (not just the "winners" extracting money from all the "losers" in a mini-crash);
11) furthermore, the actions will retrospectively be justified as positive in the media (the brutal dictators become "moderate reformers allied with the West"),
12) so that by the time lines of "conspiracy" are drawn in the public mind, it'll be "what's the big deal about Iran-Contra?," and the perpetrators will be able to openly continue their careers without being labeled murderous monsters
Based on these considerations, your conspiracy theory is of the "wild-assed" type, inconsistent with institutional patterns of "actual" conspiracy.
I appreciate the effort, but for all the well-chosen words in your post, it's nothing more than a restatement of your initial position.
I see no reference to experience or external authority, no allusions to history or similar situations, and no compelling logical flow from a premise to a conclusion. It fairly reeks of sophistry, using such vague terms as "large number of players", "overwhelming majority", and "number rapidly increases".
For contrast, a credible argument could have compared the amount of Cyprus gold with the world total amount, or cited previous (ie - historical) stock market drops with similar causes and drawn an analogy with the present situation. Facts and reference combine to make a powerful argument.
In short, you've added nothing to your premise, which is essentially attacking the person while hand-waving and storytelling.
I knew what your position was, the challenge was to defend it.
A troll would not have done more than you did. This was rather easy. When you attacked the person instead of the argument, it became shooting fish in a barrel.
Can we dispense with the term "homemade"? This is a bogus term on many levels. A) It implies that there are store-bought (or restaurant-quality) devices available. It's about as useful as calling some fancy devices 'gourmet' bombs. B) It also implies a connection to so-called 'homegrown' terrorists in the same way that the Benghazi attack was due to (and justified by) a video (which it wasn't but what difference does that make). Call them what they are: an improvised explosive device (IED). That is an accurate term because these were not made in a factory and it does not attempt to assign blame.
Yeh, somewhere there's probably film/pictures of someone leaving the bomb. You could probably correlate it with other pictures/videos from earlier that would help you backtrack the person's tracks.
I first heard of this bombing on ESPN at the restaurant I was eating lunch at. The Boston marathon is a legitimate sports event, but they continued covering and discussing the bombing well past the point of it being a sports story. Was ESPN exploiting the tragedy?
Don't they know that exploiting tragedy for profit is the job of the mainstream media?
(as is handwringing over doing just that)
Seriously, if you're in the news business, whether a blogger or a regular media member, exploiting tragedies is part and parcel of your business. "If it bleeds, it leads", right?
in my country all major news media relies on ad-generated revenue. they exploit everything from human interest stories to the weather.
1 - The DJIA is useless as an indicator of economic activity. Not just bad - *COMPLETELY USELESS* The S&P500 has been steadily rising the last few months, and mostly still is.
2 - Gold has been dropping consistently for roughly a month, ever since some European countries that are in trouble had indicated that they might offload some of their holdings to pay off their debts.
You're correlation hunting.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Slashdot was uncharacteristically quick about that one.
I guess Twitter broke the news a full 15 minutes before CNN did. But as a friend put it, social media is absolutely unmatched at breaking the news... but it's a clusterfuck after the first 10 minutes.
Take us back a few years, and the folks at NORAD were learning about 9/11 from CNN.
It used to be you could switch from the immediate source over to the real news to get real, confirmed information. All the news outlets did this time was repost tragedy porn and random tweets. I saw a lot of just wrong info on all the news outlets.
Tech sites, though... they just can't pass on the buffet of page views.
Thank you. An island of expertise in a roiling sea of opinion.
You're correlation hunting.
I sometimes wonder about the general reaction to "correlation hunting". I'm not in any way defending the position, only asking whether it's a coincidence. Is calling something a "conspiracy theory" the new way to shut down a conversation?
I always thought good science starts with the phrase "that's odd...", but maybe it doesn't apply in some circumstances.
Anyway, thank you for the reassuring perspective.
We could, however, grade where the facts aren't in despute. Is the person in an interview what the media describes them as? Is he really the Dean of Engineering at Stanford, or is he just an assistant professor at stamford? Is person X really a psychiatrist or does she really just have a bachelors in psychology? Is the disgraced politician really a (R), a (D), or an (I)? Various studies from sources such as the Columbia School of Journalism have shown some news sources are much less reliable on such points than others. What about the many cases where there's no real disagreement over the facts, where both 'official from the current government' sources and respected private sources, plus public records going back to previous administrations and such all generally agree?
Who is John Cabal?
that would be ILLEGAL and violate the fifth ammendment. The constitution does NOT EXPLICITLY permit video surveillance.
(roman_mir, blocked by liberal moderators)
Joke or not? It's impossible to tell.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You can say this about any for profit industry that benefits from disaster - media outlets, mobile phone service providers, funeral homes, medical institutions and doctors, nurses, paramedics. Life is life, and we have businesses based around reacting to disasters, pain, and suffering. I don't think anyone in those industries leaps for joy when it happens though. To pick on the tech industry specifically is kind of weak. They're pretty far down the line in terms of the beneficiaries of the death economy.
Here you have a tech website in its natural habitat, being a gigantic hypocrite
Slashdot posted one story, the rest of the material was comments by slashdot readers. We didn't get hourly updates inviting us to agree with our challenge the latest incorrect rumour.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
My personal experience was the major news organizations exploited this more than Twitter or Facebook. Twitter and Facebook allowed people on the ground to share their experiences where as the news organizations were sitting around talking about the emotional tragedy of an 8 year old boy getting blown up. What i mean to say is that the major news organizations were spinning the story to have the most emotional impact and thus gain the largest audience whereas bloggers each have their own bias. You get a more honest view(not necessarily more accurate) by sampling the blogs than you ever will watching the spin that we call news.
"I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions."
Amazing isn't it?
The same applies for internet news.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We could, however, grade where the facts aren't in despute. Is the person in an interview what the media describes them as? Is he really the Dean of Engineering at Stanford, or is he just an assistant professor at stamford? Is person X really a psychiatrist or does she really just have a bachelors in psychology? Is the disgraced politician really a (R), a (D), or an (I)? Various studies from sources such as the Columbia School of Journalism have shown some news sources are much less reliable on such points than others. What about the many cases where there's no real disagreement over the facts, where both 'official from the current government' sources and respected private sources, plus public records going back to previous administrations and such all generally agree?
But unless things get stupid, minor errors like those you mention don't really matter, certainly not when compared with the overall editorial tone of a news outlet.
If Person X talks bollocks about psychiatry, I don't care whether they've got an O level in psychology or they're Sigmund Freud.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Mate, don't bother arguing with conspiracy theorists. It's like feeding trolls, but without the potential for humour.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I think you're right, in fact its been my experience that most modern cookers are designed so the gasket between the lid and the pot will give way and leak pressure pretty much every time you use it. They've also been redesigned so you can't lose the little weight that sits on top, but that means that you a) don't get the "chukka chukka" noise and b) they are messier and harder to clean.
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!