A Critique of the Boston Bombing News Coverage (Video)

David Coursey has spent a lot of his life as a journalist, specializing in IT coverage for most of it. He's written for ZDNet and eWeek, Forbes, and other well-known publications, and has had his stories linked from Slashdot more than a few times over the years. What he is not as well known for is his expertise as an EMT, a field he has been in as both a volunteer and professional since the rocks in California (where he lives) were still soft enough that the Flintstones used them as pillows. He and I were chatting on Facebook yesterday, and I realized that David's views on media coverage of the recent Boston Marathon bombings might be worth sharing. Do you think what he's saying is valid? Do you agree or disagree with him? Or some of each?

Comments

Re:Worst. Coverage. Ever.

[AK Marc]

In police speak, everyone's a suspect until cleared. And he's been cleared. He was suspected because he was there and brown. He's connected, so like the Saudi family evacuated during the no-fly period after 9/11, we treat them like royalty. But he's been officially cleared of all suspicion. He was never arrested. For all we know, it was a hit against Saudi royalty with him as the target, and they are "deporting" him because that was the request of the Saudi Royal Family. There are no facts, no public releases, and no arrests. We only know what the conservative media spoon feeds us, or talk-shows tell us are "unconfirmed rumors we'll treat as true until proven otherwise, then go into the conspiracy to cover up the facts if anything we say is wrong."