Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Critique of the Boston Bombing News Coverage (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on from the horrible-but-not-terrifying-in-a-free-society dept.

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?

114 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. The big rush by Rurik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need a story now, quick. We need something to put on airtime because our marketing is calling around our advertising clients to see who wants to bid on the next hour of airtime. The big need to get something up quick, even if it's very low quality, such as a poorly recorded video interview without a transcript... oh, wait...

    1. Re:The big rush by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Oh you forgot, we need to be the first so screw fact checking by calling the police dept to see if they actually arrested any one and just run the story that they did arrest someone based on unconfirmed rumor.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:The big rush by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can we get a story critiquing the critiques of news coverage? Then a round of critiques of those? How do I know which critique to pay attention to when the critique critiques aren't out yet?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:The big rush by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      I saw one story in the newspaper that was just a list of times of who reported what and who was first with what. Read like a re cap of a football game.

    4. Re:The big rush by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We need a story now, quick. We need something to put on airtime because our marketing is calling around our advertising clients to see who wants to bid on the next hour of airtime. The big need to get something up quick, even if it's very low quality, such as a poorly recorded video interview without a transcript... oh, wait...

      Back on Sept 11, 2001, the media were far worse. Network and news outlets on television and the web were trying to outbid each other on the body count. 5,000, 15,000, could be has high as 40,000. Really appalling. They didn't know what else to do in their own confusion, but play the horrifying videos over and over and try to make the whole thing as grim as they could, to keep viewers glued and ultimately numbing them.

      I have a book with collections of newspaper front pages from December 7, 8, 9 ... 1941. Back in that day the news focused on what was known, body counts were off the pages for the first few days and then only included known dead. The final tally wasn't truly known in the news for almost one year. News moved slower, people gave themselves more time to think.

      The idiocy of the AP running a rumor of an arrest and showing how quick every other outlet is willing to parrot this and seek confirmation later, showed what a swarm of locusts mentality there is in the media these days.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:The big rush by Delarth799 · · Score: 1

      I remember a quote from a while back that said "We don't have reporters these days, only stenographers" Which is true more and more each day. Almost nobody fact checks anymore they just spew it out as fast as they can write it down. Sure some of the more local places are better but the bigger news companies its getting rarer and rarer.

    6. Re:The big rush by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      We went through similar reporting in the UK on the tube/bus bombings. I watched that reporting as it happened, on two channels at once - not because I care to be that up-to-date, but because the reporting itsself interested me. Sky News and BBC. Both reported a lot of things which were soon after revealed to be false - varying estimates not just for the casualties, but the number of bombs!

      This is what the public seems to demand now. News reporting just seconds behind events, from the front line, as it happens. That means there isn't time to check facts. If a station stops to check facts, a competitor will report things first.

      If you want to see some really interesting 'reporting' try the biased sites and internet news. Plenty of speculation reporting as fact there, and an effective industry of 'experts' who can be interviewed to say anything on anything. The leading groundless speculation right now is that this must be an Al Quida attack, on the grounds that the bombs were constructed using pressure cookers as components, and some Al Quida bombs in the past have used pressure cookers too. That, and a middle-eastern-looking bearded man was seen in the crowd on some mobile phone footage. The conclusion may be correct, but the reasoning isn't.

    7. Re:The big rush by Bigby · · Score: 1

      That is because there is still an attitude that what you say isn't "etched in stone". When you write it, it is "etched in stone". So with newspapers, they were careful for their own credibility. Someone could always go back and prove you were wrong. Although you can do the same thing with video and even measure context better with video, that attitude doesn't seem to prevail. We as a society seam to expect fallacy in video.

    8. Re:The big rush by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what the public seems to demand now.

      No. Just no.

      The public would like the facts, as quickly as possible.

      The news media only listened to the second half of that sentence. Much like their reporting.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:The big rush by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      That is because there is still an attitude that what you say isn't "etched in stone". When you write it, it is "etched in stone". So with newspapers, they were careful for their own credibility. Someone could always go back and prove you were wrong. Although you can do the same thing with video and even measure context better with video, that attitude doesn't seem to prevail. We as a society seam to expect fallacy in video.

      Maybe not etched in stone, but etched in something more permanent - the internet. Somewhere I have a printscreen from November, 2000, proclaiming Al Gore as the next president of the United States. I know it didn't last on ther page for long, but I saved it. I have it somewhere.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    10. Re:The big rush by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The public would like the facts, as quickly as possible.

      The news media only listened to the second half of that sentence. Much like their reporting.

      That's because the second half of that sentence is effectively the important one. It's difficult to tell if a report is the facts. But it's easy to tell if it's first.

    11. Re:The big rush by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      How about the Obamacare decision, where they initially reported it had been struck down?

    12. Re:The big rush by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, use non-profit news outlets. I do not use for-profit news sources anymore (CNN, etc.).

      Sites like /. don't count - they're not really news sites per se, they're more aggregators, and focus on specific niche areas - I'm talking more in the scope of general daily news sources.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    13. Re:The big rush by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      I think part of the problem with reporting is the influence of Cultural Marxism, also known as Political Correctness. This means that journalists don't tie together important background information if it doesn't match the narrative of the angle they decided to take *before they started their story "investigation". What remains after the self-censoring does not make much coherent sense.

      For example, looking around the World it appears as if much of the violence is random and much of the US response equally random. Hence you get notions that the US is doing drone strikes all over the place because of ridiculous speculations like the military are bored and are looking for sport (or equally, the military industrial complex needs wars for more money; it is quite good at getting money without wars - in fact, wars suck money out of new procurement programmes, so are not so good for most players in the MI complex; but I digress).

      If you dig deeper than the mainstream media to join the dots you will see that many of the "random clashes" around the world are part of an organized campaign of Islamic expansion or sectarian conflict funded by Saudi and Iranian petrodollars (eg. the violence in the following countries is not isolated, it is connected by Islamic ideology: Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark, France, Mali, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Eastern China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Argentina and most recently, the US). This conflict has been going on for 1400 years, yet the shallow analysis of the press ties it to more recent events (eg. US intervention in Afghanistan). Similarly, the US is waging an equally stealthy global war to oppose this. Because the mainstream media has been self-censoring and reporting euphemism and memes that don't match that facts it is no wonder people cannot connect the dots to see what is really going on in the shadows. As long as things happen over time periods longer than a few months the mainstream media are fairly oblivious to it, and can easily be persuaded to parrot the propaganda of the antagonists rather than conduct a proper analysis.

      There is no easy solution to the self-censoring, and eradication of the wider perspective of any story by the press. However, the Internet has made a huge difference and will only grow in importance. Internet news is bad in that bad reporting and fallacies live forever, but it has the huge advantage that anyone with an interest can fact-check and self-publish articles that can reference all sorts of detailed information. For example: sites like Gate of Vienna (http://gatesofvienna.net/) and others show the holistic picture of growing Islamism by tying together all the facts they can get their hands on - meanwhile, the mainstream media were effectively cowed into Sharia-compliant self-censorship by the violence resulting from the 'Danish cartoons' fiasco (and a lack of political leadership, and the political correctness concept of 'causing offense' as a crime, meant there was little support for free press defiance - hence the freedom of the press shrunk a little more).

      Mainstream media news is only for those that want sound bites that skew the picture in the way the reporter wanted. Only Internet news sites provide the comprehensive analysis that allows tying together disparate events for a coherent picture of the motivations of those involved. Unfortunately that means that the huge number of people who only get their news through mainstream media have a very narrow and distorted picture of reality (which is why they voted Obama a second term to further fsck up the US economy [through government overspending on *massive* entitlement programmes the US simply cannot afford] and its Constitutional liberties).

    14. Re:The big rush by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's about money. Then you started with the 9/11 conspiracy shit and I realized that yup you're a conspiracy guy. Guys with radiation detectors onsite? Why in the hell would anyone find that surprising and why in this world would the news report it?

      Never mind. I'm not going to feed you, it's just not worth the energy banging my head against the wall with one of you guys.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    15. Re:The big rush by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Oh, one other thing. I own 4 backpacks. ALL of them are black and at least two have skulls on them - stop the presses!

      http://www.jinx.com/home.aspx

      Black is probably THE most common color for a backpack....

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    16. Re:The big rush by s.petry · · Score: 1

      As to the article linked: Where do they claim it was a specific backpack? They are saying that Mercenaries at the event wear similar backpacks and are not named as persons of interest. Their questions start with "Why a Mercenary Company is at this event to begin with?" It is very much worth questioning why a Mercenary Company is patrolling Boston's streets instead of, you know.. the Boston Police, Massachusetts State Police, and Sheriff's offices. They are also showing that the bombs could have been placed by Mercenaries as easily as some random person they have not yet found. They are not even claiming that the Merc company was in on it, but rather the guys walking around should be persons of interest and interrogated by the Police.

      Do they spend too much time on the radiometer? I think some of their questions on the device are over the top, maybe just to make sure you see them. Maybe they suspect them as detonation devices and just didn't say so? I don't know their thoughts on it, I just read the article. I agree with them that the media has never mentioned hired Mercenaries at this event, and it does seem rather odd. Is it explainable? Maybe, if you don't know to ask why they are there you don't know to ask for an explanation do you? And nobody seems to be volunteering information.

      To your first point: People asking questions still regarding 911 are just idiots? You have all the answers to building 7? Maybe ou must have found all of the plane debris from PA right? Or you found the plane debris at the Pentagon, and figured out all of the physics required to explain a hole much smaller than the plane that hit the building, and no wing marks? Over 3,000 Architects, Engineers, and Physicists have stated that the Government answer to how and why T1 and T2 fell is impossible, maybe you have all of the answers they are looking for? You have none of those things, and you won't even acknowledge the questions.

      Let me point this out really simply. Claiming you were told a lie is not the same as having the truth. If I claimed I knew the answers to the above, feel free to call me what ever you like. The majority of people asking questions are not asking because they know answers, they are asking because what they were told can not be true. Science has tested the released answers over and over, and the released answers fail.

      Maybe you are so afraid of cognitive dissonance that you won't bother to look at the questions people are asking, or why they are asking. It's much easier to believe that Uncle Sam and the Media would never ever lie to you. Even though there is ample proof that both happen commonly, you will still vehemently deny that it happens. The fact that people behave that way goes back at least a couple thousand years, and is written in the Allegory of the Cave.

      Please, don't bother feeding me.. I'd starve to death trying to absorb your wealth of knowledge.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    17. Re:The big rush by s.petry · · Score: 1

      There is no easy solution to the self-censoring, and eradication of the wider perspective of any story by the press. However, the Internet has made a huge difference and will only grow in importance. Internet news is bad in that bad reporting and fallacies live forever, but it has the huge advantage that anyone with an interest can fact-check and self-publish articles that can reference all sorts of detailed information.

      Agreed, this is why so many other sites are popping up currently. I hope it grows, because what we have in media today called "News" is anything but news.

      Unfortunately that means that the huge number of people who only get their news through mainstream media have a very narrow and distorted picture of reality (which is why they voted Obama a second term to further fsck up the US economy [through government overspending on *massive* entitlement programmes the US simply cannot afford] and its Constitutional liberties).

      Well stated.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:The big rush by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Do you have the Mercenary logo on your shirt, hat, and carry a gun at public events as a Mercenary and not an officer of the law? Would you be a bit bothered if you went to the State Fair with the Kids and Blackwater guards were patrolling fully armed? Personally I'd leave, they are not police and something is wrong with that situation. What is more wrong, is someone thinking it's no big deal or normal. Then again, maybe citizen34057 is fully integrated into the police state and trying to get a better home for his one allowed wife and one child.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    19. Re:The big rush by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think part of the problem with reporting is the influence of Cultural Marxism, also known as Political Correctness.

      Anyone who thinks that the mainstream media, especially in the US, are Marxist should either seek psychiatric help, or perhaps just knock off the drugs.

      And yes, I know he said "Cultural Marxism" so that he can pretend he meant something other than, er, marxism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:The big rush by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Maybe you are so afraid of cognitive dissonance that you won't bother to look at the questions people are asking, or why they are asking. It's much easier to believe that Uncle Sam and the Media would never ever lie to you. Even though there is ample proof that both happen commonly, you will still vehemently deny that it happens. The fact that people behave that way goes back at least a couple thousand years, and is written in the Allegory of the Cave.

      That's not what (Plato's) Allegory of the Cave means at all.

      He believed there were eternal truths (e.g. the perfect idea of a circle), which we can only see the distorted reflections of. It's got nothing to do with governments or people lying to each other.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:The big rush by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      which is why they voted Obama a second term to further fsck up the US economy [through government overspending on *massive* entitlement programmes the US simply cannot afford]

      You mean fellating the military-industrial complex, right? We can't afford that. But if we stopped blowing so much money on it, we could afford all the entitlement programs meant for citizens, and then some.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:The big rush by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      Who is critiquing those that critique?

    23. Re:The big rush by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The Allegory of the Cave is a metaphorical masterpiece. Cognitive dissonance and the human responses to fear and comfort versus facts are both covered.

      It's got nothing to do with governments or people lying to each other.

      What? The sentences are a question asking "What would happen if a Government keeps it's population enslaved within a cave so that they don't know the outside world exists?" (Translations vary greatly, but most should come very close to that. This comes out in a discussion about how to create a "perfect" Government which requires intense study of currently known and more often than not types of Governments, and how a persons reality can be manipulated.

      Sorry dude, you obviously know very little about the Allegory of the Cave. I'd recommend that you read a different translation than you read (If you have actually read it), or a different set of cliff notes or something. Cambridge historical texts are very well done, and little is done in the way of interpreting the Philosophy being discussed as you may find in some College books.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    24. Re:The big rush by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Gah.. s/The\ sentences/The\ first\ sentences/

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    25. Re:The big rush by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      The critiquemen!

    26. Re:The big rush by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree with this.

    27. Re:The big rush by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      non profit news sources do have their own bias, though.

    28. Re:The big rush by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could watch a historical documentary and learn a little bit about the issue. Cultural Marxism is different from economic or political Marxism. Since it appears you don't understand the difference I hope this video may teach you something:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

      Please watch the video and then get back to me to show me where I'm wrong. Your statements so far show you to be well indoctrinated by the precepts of the Frankfurt School. It's ok if you want to stay in the Matrix that is US culture, but at least have a look at the bars that you choose to remain behind. Sound good?

    29. Re:The big rush by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Ah, the demonization of the Left. So typical. Rather than understand the point I was trying to make, and then debating with whatever facts you knew to counter, you instead resorted immediately to applying labels. It shows how little thought *you* bring to the table - since you never have to use facts in your arguments and you can dismiss competing ideas based on labels you apply to those presenting them. I suggest you watch the following video to understand how the methods you have just used in fact reinforce the case I made:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

    30. Re:The big rush by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1
      The US economy is being destroyed because the inhabitants are doing several things:
      • 1) Citizens are demanding benefits and entitlements from the Government without regard to overall programme cost or the contribution of the individual citizen. These entitlements are causing the overspending (not the defense budget which has been shrinking in relative terms for 60 years, even if it has grown in absolute terms although at a slower rate than the overall economy)
      • 2) Politicians must grant the wishes of the citizens or they will not even have a chance to be elected. Therefore, politicians promise lies and bad policies are put in place. Pork programmes are demanded by citizens and granted by politicians from the public purse.
      • 3) Politicians are continually growing the size of Government. This is a non-productive sector which consumes resources from the productive sector, and lately has been interferring with the ability of the productive sector of the economy in generating wealth. Of course Government regulation is needed to enure fairness, but outfits like the EPA have gone *insane* with regulation.
      • 4) Besides the increased size of Government, individual government worker salaries and entitlements have increased to the point they exceed salaries in the private sector. The benefits of civil servants (eg. pensions) are now the largest source of debt in the US economy. Unfunded liabilities of entitlement programmes (mostly pensions etc) are now around $US 60 TRILLION (or a staggering $238 TRILLION according to Niall Ferguson's estimate) and far far exceed US defence spending at $0.8 TRILLION per annum, and falling (while also providing jobs and high-tech innovative industries with R&D funds).

      A couple of citations/references for you:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#Unfunded_obligations_excluded
      http://silverdoctors.com/niall-ferguson-us-unfunded-liabilities-top-238-trillion/
      The "100k" club, the number civil servants drawing more than $100k per annum is *soaring*
      http://newjersey.watchdog.org/2013/04/15/100k-club-3/

      So while you may see fiscal conservatives as "meanies who don't care about the poor" this is a mistaken view. It is the liberal spending policies of the Obama Administration (look at how spending has *increased* massively, even after the economic bailout) that are destroying the US economy and will ultimately hurt the poor far far more than fiscal conservatism would (which would reduce entitlements and wasteful programmes in the short term, but grow the economy in the long term which would allow more tax to be generated which would only then get redistributed to the poor; as JFK said about the importance of this, "A rising tide floats all boats").

      The reason you repeat the fallacy of US defence spending is the result of several factors:

      1) Cultural Marxism is now dominating the discourse. Marxism lost the economic and political battles, but has won the cultural battle. The cultural narrative is now directed by marxists of the Frankfurt School, and they are ensuring that America marches to its destruction while the population is misguided and misdirected by Marxist memes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

      2) the mainstream media are either too incompetent or complicit in this scheme (most journalists and editors now come from schools with programmes that are aligned with Cultural Marxism - which is why many newspapers enforce follow and enforce the Politically Correct narrative).

      3) Much of the US population has a woeful knowledge of geopolitics and history. They can easily be swayed by false memes because they don't know much about the history of plac

    31. Re:The big rush by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      I'm not in the US and don't watch Fox News. Sorry, your smear has failed. I suggest you watch the documentary I posted.

  2. Worst. Coverage. Ever. by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Coverage has been one completely bogus claim after another, always from unnamed sources.

    Blast from second floor inside building. Oh wait, no it wasn't.
    Two bombs placed in trash cans. Oh wait, no they weren't.
    Authorities have found and "blown up" a number of other bombs. Oh wait, no they haven't.
    A dark skinned suspect has been arrested. Oh wait, there is no such suspect.

    1. Re:Worst. Coverage. Ever. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Troll

      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."

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    2. Re:Worst. Coverage. Ever. by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Many of them can probably be explained by the tried and true game of telephone. While they didn't blow up other bombs, they blew up suspected bombs. That would account for (1) and (3). The bombs had metal fragments, so a 1st responder was probably like "were these in a trash can?". An innocent mistake, as at least one was in a pressure cooker (2).

      I don't know about (4), but they did ask a whole lot of people questions...I'm sure one was "dark skinned".

    3. Re:Worst. Coverage. Ever. by fnj · · Score: 1

      You meant Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi doesn't exist? Or that he was never suspected of anything? True he wasn't actually arrested, but his visa was revoked and he's being deported.

      I wouldn't be too sure about that. There is a lot of backtracking going on over that. "He's going to be deported; oh wait, maybe not".

      "Now, it seems that the man is completely innocent of any wrongdoing."

      The police also water cannoned a number of suspected bombs that turned out to be nothing. When I heard the reports of "other bombs" being water cannoned I knew it was the normal over protection.

      Yeah, I realized the wording of those reports was completely clueless. I hardly think the procedures were "over protection", but clearly all that was being done was figuratively poking stuff with a long long stick to see if it would blow up - in an abundance of caution - SOP.

    4. Re:Worst. Coverage. Ever. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, there is no such suspect.

      http://www.fbi.gov/news/updates-on-investigation-into-multiple-explosions-in-boston/updates-on-investigation-into-multiple-explosions-in-boston

    5. Re:Worst. Coverage. Ever. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He was never officially a suspect, but was he suspected? So they never had a suspect, nor any suspect in custody, and CNN reported an arrest, when there was no arrest. When the police refuse to comment, the news will report random guesses. The conservative talk shows are reporting he was "arrested" and often defining arrest differently than the police. Then highlight the special treatment he's getting, armed escort out of the country at taxpayer expense, and such. He was reported to be under armed guard (possibly protective custody, possibly arrest, possibly being in a room near the guards, as all the hospitals were on heightened security.

      Nobody knows anything, and the police, not liking to say "we haven't a clue" say things like "we are investigating all leads" and people see police next to a brown man and leap to conclusions.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  3. Dunno. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not ask us again in a day or two (when the transcript is ready).

  4. Jon Stewart Said It Well by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't seem to play the video and there's no transcript but I was impressed with Jon Stewart's drawing and quartering of CNN's coverage. He hit the nail on the head of what "journalistic integrity" has fallen to. Jon Stewart was saying CNN had an 'exclusive' story on the arrest ... exclusive because there was no arrest.

    Get on Twitter, say some stuff that sounds legit. Sit back and watch it retweeted, then it'll hit the blogs and finally the 'news.' And all they have to do is try to track down the original source (you) but they seldom do. And that's what "crowdsourced" news has come to. Whenever someone heralds the amazing results from crowdsourced news, it's always post hoc cherry picked results of an actual first hand account or someone who got it right. They seldom look at the entire volume of tweets prior to what we know is true and what is conjecture/wrong.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Jon Stewart Said It Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      here it is

      Funny as hell, too.

    2. Re:Jon Stewart Said It Well by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      He was hilarious last night, as the best of humor always contains an uncomfortable truth within it. I will view the broad spectrum of newscasts from time to time to see how each is reporting the same event, but in matters on the order of 9/11, CNN has always been my go-to newscast. I find my old jaded self still capable of disappointment today. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, a wretched whore, and an honorable journalist are at a crossroads, equidistant from a pile of gold at the intersection's center. The starting gun sounds and they race to the prize. Who wins? The wretched whore... because now that we're all grown up, we know there's no such thing as the fat man in red, the magic egg-laying rabbit, or the honorable newsman.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Jon Stewart Said It Well by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Get on Twitter, say some stuff that sounds legit. Sit back and watch it retweeted, then it'll hit the blogs and finally the 'news.' And all they have to do is try to track down the original source (you) but they seldom do. And that's what "crowdsourced" news has come to.

      That's pretty much how gossip works. In their rush to embrace "social media" and incorporate crowdsourcing into their reporting process, the news organizations have lost sight of what distinguished their profession from mere gossip - a bona fide effort to confirm what you're hearing before you run off repeating it. Instead they've degenerated into repeating it, but pretending adding the magic words "we have an unconfirmed report..." makes it all ok.

    4. Re:Jon Stewart Said It Well by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I can't seem to play the video and there's no transcript but I was impressed with Jon Stewart's drawing and quartering of CNN's coverage. He hit the nail on the head of what "journalistic integrity" has fallen to. Jon Stewart was saying CNN had an 'exclusive' story on the arrest ... exclusive because there was no arrest.

      Get on Twitter, say some stuff that sounds legit. Sit back and watch it retweeted, then it'll hit the blogs and finally the 'news.' And all they have to do is try to track down the original source (you) but they seldom do. And that's what "crowdsourced" news has come to. Whenever someone heralds the amazing results from crowdsourced news, it's always post hoc cherry picked results of an actual first hand account or someone who got it right. They seldom look at the entire volume of tweets prior to what we know is true and what is conjecture/wrong.

      Get on the TV news, say some stuff that sounds legit. Sit back and watch it repeated, then it'll hit the national consciousness and finally be considered "news". And all they have to do is try to track down the original source (you and your news network) but they seldom do. And that's what "news" has come to. Whenever someone heralds the amazing results from the news media, it's always post hoc cherry picked results of an actual first hand account or someone who got it right. They seldom look at the entire volume of "news" coverage prior to what we know is true and what is conjecture/wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Jon Stewart Said It Well by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Which is more difficult: Get on Twitter, or Get on the TV News? There's the problem. The bar is so much lower for someone randomly shoving a tweet out there.

  5. Get resigned to further losses of freedom by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatever else this story will do, it will further undermine any objection to CCTV cameras everywhere, especially if the bomber gets caught as a result of them.

    1. Re:Get resigned to further losses of freedom by Cornwallis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The only thing I ever saw that came close to objective journalism was a closed-circuit TV setup that watched shoplifters in the general store at Woody Creek, Colorado," wrote the late, great Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.

    2. Re:Get resigned to further losses of freedom by idlake · · Score: 1

      A lot of "CCTV" cameras are private webcams on people's private property. You're saying I shouldn't be able to put a webcam in my window and make the pictures publicly available? I shouldn't be able to take pictures in public spaces? Why not? Should press be permitted to do so?

      And if the bombers get caught, doesn't that indicate that these cameras may be useful after all? I mean, the objection to them used to be that they didn't actually help in catching criminals, but one can revise that belief in light of new evidence, right?

  6. transcript or GTFO by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I wanted video I'd be on Youtube.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:transcript or GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this * 1000. Sorry DICEdot, but this isn't what I come here for.

    2. Re:transcript or GTFO by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      If I wanted video I'd be on Youtube.

      What did we say overwhelmingly in a recent poll? Something about you should implement what the customer wants, not what the developers want? The world would be a happier place.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    3. Re:transcript or GTFO by Tom · · Score: 2

      mod parent up.

      What's this? a clickbait? a troll? really? You have something to say, just say it. Don't make me click a video. I can read faster than most people can talk, so write it out, or I just don't give a fuck. I might care after I know at least the gist of what you want to say, but "hey, this dude has something interesting to say" isn't getting me to listen. There's a billion people on the Internet who all think they have something important to say.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  7. Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just wondering if all you MSM types can get off your 24/7 cycle and stop going over and over and over this.

    My cousin is home from the hospital and her two knee surgeries, and the FBI has the shrapnel from her leg.

    K, thanks.

    P.S.: Most of my family is NOT WATCHING your coverage. At all.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The concentration on the Boston bombing is ridiculous considering that Iraq had twenty car bombings that same day. It's ridiculous that they dropped every single other news story to cover only the Boston story, and then repeated the same five minutes' worth of information 24 hours a day. They may as well have shut off the antenna at that point.

    2. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The most important question is, does she get the shrapnel back after the trial (if any)?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Not sure. Don't think anyone in my family cares about the shrapnel, other than as used for evidence.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The concentration on the Boston bombing is ridiculous considering that Iraq had twenty car bombings that same day. It's ridiculous that they dropped every single other news story to cover only the Boston story, and then repeated the same five minutes' worth of information 24 hours a day. They may as well have shut off the antenna at that point.

      To quote the Ninja Turtles cartoon:
      "Dog bites man? that's not news, Man Bites dog, that's news!"

      The significance of a news story is inversely related to how frequently similar incident occurs. Bombings happen all the time in Iraq so they are only rarely worth international news coverage. Bombings like this are almost unheard of in the United States, which makes it more significant news.

      However I will grant you that 24 hour coverage was unnecessary.

    5. Re: Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      American news companies broadcasting primarily on American channels SHOULD give higher precedence to US news. Because people care most about what's going on in their own country. There is nothing wrong with that.

      So it took about 5 minutes to give all of the known information play it at the top of the hour and then tell some more news. just because it happened here did not mean they needed to stop all other reporting

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    6. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I know more than one person with souvenirs from war injuries. Something for the kids and their kids kids to talk about.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    7. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by unitron · · Score: 1

      Hope your cousin makes full recovery and does so soon.

      Were you previously Will in Seattle around here?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    8. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      The United States already killed 10 times the number of Afghans at a wedding early that day. But we don't hear about that, because no one cares about the US bombing civilians whose only crime was attending a wedding.

      No they didn't. Somebody went through a lot of trouble to spread a reprint of a 2002 article.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    9. Re: Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, there was no news coverage about CISPA was there? I'm not sure any News station has every explained it's pros and cons, let alone took a 5 minute break from their "Live Boston" coverage to discuss the vote.

      You have to blame something more reasonable than MURAKA NEWS BRAH!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    10. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by Ottibus · · Score: 1

      I don't care much what happens in Iraq or who blows each other up there. I do care about it in the US.

      Some of what is happening in Iraq is the result of what the US and others have done there in the last decade or so.

      You should care about what your country does, not just about what happens in your country.

    11. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Yesterday, the local (as in, this town) news website reported a death from a road traffic incident as the top news story.

      That death wasn't reported on the national news, nor was it international news. Why not? Because several people probably died in the same manner that day nationally, and hundreds globally.

      So why did it make the local news? Because it was relevant to the locality!

       

    12. Re:Can you stop the 24/7 coverage now? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      To quote the Ninja Turtles cartoon:

      "Dog bites man? that's not news, Man Bites dog, that's news!"

      That was around a long time before the Ninja Turtles ever hatched. As in, the late Nineteenth, early Twentieth century.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. Fact Checking and Bias by Atticka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where to begin...

    The competition to get to the story first is too great and often over shadows the duty of the new to check facts and report an unbiased account of events.

    What is missing is any sort of repercussions for reporting false facts, who do we hold accountable? Unfortunately good news simply does not pull in the desired ratings and ad revenues.

    --
    No sig here...
    1. Re:Fact Checking and Bias by White+Flame · · Score: 2

      And that "competition" is complete bunk. People don't care who has a story first. They go to their usual outlets, and the stories are reported there whenever the info reaches them. The reason they go to the sites or news stations/programs they do is because they prefer the coverage or style of reporting that's going on there.

  9. No info + 24/hr news cycle = failure by hsmith · · Score: 2

    CNN/NBC/Fox all want to be the first to get the story out. No matter what, for some reason being first though bad info - is good.

    Then, they have hours of airtime to fill. So they use unknown "fact" combined with stupid pundits to just fill airtime. It is a bunch of shit in summation.

    1. Re:No info + 24/hr news cycle = failure by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      CNN/NBC/Fox all want to be the first to get the story out. No matter what, for some reason being first though bad info - is good.

        Then, they have hours of airtime to fill. So they use unknown "fact" combined with stupid pundits to just fill airtime. It is a bunch of shit in summation.

      It's the evolution of news. All the media has taken the blogger threat seriously - thinking that they have to compete against Joe Schmoe with a blog reporting on news, and being able to do it quicker means catching up on twitter and other stuff. So quicker becomes better because you want to be the one to break it first, not the one who breaks it 5 minutes later. Plus we've all convinced ourselves that traditional media is dying because the internet can get it out quicker faster and cheaper

      Of course, this rolls back into the discussion of something with a long update cycle - newspapers and magazines. There the added value they can have is NOT bringing the latest conjecture, but spend the extra time fact checking and following up because you cannot compete on instant, but you can compete on analysis.

      Plus, there's a lot of news I don't care about knowing right this instant - if I find out the next day, that's fine with me. Sometimes knowing immediately isn't very valuable E.g., the bombing - yes it happened. But whether I find out two seconds after or the next day, my life remains unchanged for the most part because I'm nowhere near Boston, nor do I have friends or relatives there. And even if I did, I don't care about what caused it - the only information I'd want is "are they safe?". The type of bomb is irrelevant information in the near term.

    2. Re:No info + 24/hr news cycle = failure by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      CNN/NBC/Fox all want to be the first to get the story out. No matter what, for some reason being first though bad info - is good.

      In other words, the fourth estate has been reduced to the level of a slashdot first post.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:No info + 24/hr news cycle = failure by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      The problem is that they haven't taken the blogger threat seriously. They've knee-jerked. There's a difference. A serious response to the blogger threat would involve using bloggers as a source of tips, and seeking confirmation before they actually report things, or at the very least, making it clear which reports are unconfirmed.

      Instead, their response has been to report faster and less accurately. Thus, ironically, the very actions they took in response to the blogger threat have eliminated the sole remaining advantage that they previously had over blogs, and thus lessened the news media's importance rather than increasing it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:No info + 24/hr news cycle = failure by micheas · · Score: 1

      But only if we were to auto mod the first post to +5 informative.

      --
      Work bio at MMWD
  10. Re:emt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wtf is an EMT?

    "E"mergency "M"edical "T"echnician.

    IOW ("I"n "O"ther "W"ords), the medical person that works from an ambulance.

  11. Re:emt? by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

    Seriously? Emergency medical technician, aka paramedic. The guy in the ambulance who does the cardio-pulmonary resuscitation.

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
  12. Re:emt? by hazem · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is bad when it comes to acronyms and assuming everone speaks the same language (figuratively and literally).

    In this case, EMT is Emergency Medical Technician. They're often the people who arrive in ambulances. The old US TV show, Emergency! is centered around EMTs, about the same time that EMTs first started to exist in the US.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_medical_technician

  13. Re:emt? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Seriously, nobody can know all the acronyms from every field.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  14. Paraphrasing an expert interviewed the day after by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    People on the inside are giving out information they don't have to people on the outside who don't verify it. Both are primarily motivated by trying to make a name for themselves.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  15. But even if by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    It is domestic terrorism it IS war against America.

    And prosthetics may have gotten better, but I know DARPA is also working on some regenerative goodies. In fact there is at least one soldier walking around today who re-grew his own thigh muscle due to a powder of sorts that helped the tissue re-grow as opposed to forming scar tissue. It's fascinating stuff. And I'd much prefer regenerative versus prosthesis.

    1. Re: But even if by DaHat · · Score: 1

      War is when a country declares war on another and/or attacks them

      Says who? The Barbary wars would disagree.. as would the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on homelessness, etc.

      We DO have a name for this event though: a bombing

      I think the FBI would like to talk to you... as you obviously have more information that is publically known. If it is that simple... great, but do not treat a lack of claim of credit as an assurance that this was not a foreign run operation.

      Why don't we wait to see what the facts say once they've been collected?

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re: But even if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Barbary wars would disagree
      The Pasha of Tripoli declared war in a by destroying a flag mast, something that was customary on sea for a long time before that war. To burn or attack a flag on purpose was declaration of war. The symbol of flag burning carries on today. There was also a bilateral signing of a peace treaty, something that often happens after a war is ceased by mutual consent. In the grand scale of things, it may have been a relatively minor tussle, but war is war, and congress did give the president authority to "deal with it", without formally declaring war.

      war on drugs, war on poverty, war on homelessness

      In the context of the goings on in Mexico, that surely is a war involving non-state actors. You could have also referenced any number of guerrilla wars. However, "the war on drugs" is a political philosophy which causes people to die. Big difference. When they send armed soldiers out to kill poverty and homelessness, then we can finally call those wars, and on that day you might look a bit less down-syndromey.

  16. Cable news not what it was supposed to be by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    Everyone thought dedicated news channels would mean dedicated new coverage. These for-profit news channels are trying to maximize their news coverage dollar and that usually means making the most out of the least. Late last night I watched a sheriff interviewed who was extremely careful not to give out even estimates of numbers. He was very disciplined and never speculated; at the most saying it could have been a criminal act or it could have been an industrial accident.

    When a reporter was later asked to summarize his comments, she emphasis (paraphrasing) "he said it *could* have been a criminal act. That's an interesting choice of words." So even when there's no news, that gets turned into something!

    Look at the Jodi Arias trial that's been featured on HLN for weeks now. An open-and-shut murder tiral about a pretty girl with some irrelevant sordid sexual details has become their primary focus and they're milking it for every last graphic sexual and violent detail.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Cable news not what it was supposed to be by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      I stopped watching HLN the moment Nancy Grace(less) went for the ratings grab interview of that kidnapped girl and kept pressing her for details if she was raped. Grace was pushing for any statement from the girl that would make the next days headlines, and showed what a lousy, heartless and uncaring bully she really is. That she still has a show is disgraceful.

      Come to think of it, that was the moment I lost interest in most any type of sensationalist news coverage on TV. If you are only reporting conjecture, and don't have any clear cut facts, I move on.

    2. Re:Cable news not what it was supposed to be by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The OJ Simpson coverage laid the groundwork for the kind of breathless "journalism" we see today. Frankly I don't watch TV news any more. It's nauseating.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Cable news not what it was supposed to be by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      I quit watching TV in 1983 in the UK because even then it was apparent that everything on it was heading towards being packaged as limp light entertainment. 24 Hour news took the news all the way. I feel sorry for my parents who still watch it and are depressed because they think civilization is falling apart. There is lots more going on in the world than rapes of 11 year olds or measles outbreaks or bombs at Marathons, a million refugees from Syria or two or three habitable planets being found come to mind - but "news" is all about what scares the crap out of you because we can spin it to sound like it might happen to you - tomorrow!

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    4. Re:Cable news not what it was supposed to be by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      An old adage is, "Bad news sells newspapers", and bad news on TV keeps people tuned in through the commercials. Staying away from television altogether might just lead to a happier life, if not just not paying for cable every month.

      There is a lot of good going on in this life, but you have to look for it.

    5. Re:Cable news not what it was supposed to be by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Even older adages are: "Ignorance is bliss." and "Knowledge is power."

      If only we had that choice. Unfortunately we don't get actual knowledge in the news. Which, as you say, leaves only the 1st option as a viable alternative.

      But maybe (tinfoil hat here) that is intentional. Less knowledge to the plebs, means less power to the plebs.

    6. Re:Cable news not what it was supposed to be by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      The OJ Simpson coverage laid the groundwork for the kind of breathless "journalism" we see today.

      I think you nailed it.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    7. Re:Cable news not what it was supposed to be by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      TV news can only give a selective view of what's going on. The same is true of every other sort of media, but at least with a newspaper you get the opportunity to read about travel news, minority sport news, theatre review news, or many other types of niche interest (as well as a broader coverage of national and international news). And at least you are exposed to a variety of things, both good, bad and neutral.

      But TV/internet news is good for immediacy, I just don't see why you feel your parents are being forced to watch it 24/7.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Nothing we are doing is going to change this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People have been complaining about CNN and 24hr news since it went on air. Did it help? No, because you still tune in and they get paid. Stop watching it, or it will stay around.

  18. Stop complaining about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, stop fucking watching the 24 hr news channels. If you all weren't watching, then they wouldn't be making any money. You can't complain about something that you regularly participate in willingly. No one is FORCING YOU to pay attention to this fucking shit.

    1. Re:Stop complaining about it by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      I take the news in small doses. To be honest the only coverage of the boston marathon bombings I have read came from Slashdot and the few links that were posted. When the Sandy Hook shootings happened I also only skimmed a few slashdot articles and links.

      I firmly believe the 24 hour news coverage and other non stop forms of reporting of major incidents are more harmful to the public than the incidents themselves. What I mean by harmful is the stress it induces in everyday people who are what I like to call victims. Victims of sensationalist, overblown media coverage which seeks to ingrain the morbid and macabre into our lives. My life has enough stress, why do I need more?

      It might sound odd but I don't give two shits about the news. I glance a few headlines on google news every now and then and read Slashdot daily. Its enough to keep abreast of the news without being pummeled by it.

  19. Looks like by amightywind · · Score: 1, Funny

    Looks like muslims to me. We need to get them out of the country.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  20. Re:emt? by pinkfalcon · · Score: 1

    Minor nitpicking here, but this is the internet...

    An EMT is not the same as a Paramedic. EMT's can give O2, Intubate, do CPR, insert an IV, provide basic care etc... A Paramedic can give drugs on the scene (after consulting with a dr - usually over the radio), emergency surgery in trauma cases, and probably a lot more. I think it's the difference of 80 hours of school for an EMT versus 400 hours of school for a paramedic, but don't quote me on those numbers.

    --
    Real SUV's don't have cupholders
    It's 5:42 A.M., do you know where your stack pointer is?
  21. Too much coverage by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    It sounds odd to say it in this day and age, but there is simply too much coverage of breaking events like this.

    We all act as if those stupid ignorant media people are ridiculous, but they are just doing what every one of us does. We speculate, we come up with little stories and runors. Here you have someone talking to a clip of the carnage, that is compiled from 20 or so pieces, being shown over and over again for 30 minutes, and they have to say something. So you get stupid stuff being said. Just like we were doing in front of our televisions while watching that 30 minutes of repetitive footage.

    The problem is that the news agencies feel they have to all scurry over and only cover one thing. But there isn't much to cover at the moment. So there you have it. People being people.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  22. Re:emt? by EvanED · · Score: 2

    Minor nitpicking here, but this is the internet... An EMT is not the same as a Paramedic

    If you hadn't, I'd have. :-)

    I would describe it a bit differently though. Essentially, there are four levels of EMT: EMT Basic, EMT Intermediate, EMT Advanced, and Paramedic. That is, all paramedics are EMTs but not vice versa.

    A couple times I've considered geting EMT-basic certification and volunteering. I never have, but I did look into the training requirements. An EMT Basic course will usually be one semester; I think the one around here is twice a week for around 3 hours each meeting. That comes out to around 80 hours. I could be wrong, but I think the Intermediate course was another semester. The paramedic curriculum though is a couple years of more classes. The basic and intermediate courses struck me as something that it'd be reasonable for a lot of people to do while still having a day job, but the paramedic curriculum definitely seemed like a much more full-time commitment.

  23. Re: Can't watch video. by DaHat · · Score: 1

    Organized terrorist attacks do not happen often in the US. In fact, it hasn't happened in 11 years.

    Depends on how you define 'organized'... and sometimes they do not happen because we get lucky and stop them ahead of time (see Fort Dix six)

    Nidal Malik Hasan may have pulled the trigger on his own, but was later discovered to be in communication and plotting with Al-Awlaki.

    Oh right... the Obama administration refuses to call that a terrorist attack... only 'work place violence'.

    Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wasn't exactly a lone wolf as someone gave him that bomb and put him on the plane, similar can be said for Richard Reid (ie not acting alone.

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  24. News Coverage = Animated GIF by linebackn · · Score: 2

    Most of the "news coverage" right at the start could have been replaced by a 5 second looping animated GIF.

    Worse yet, a few hours later some of the stations around here were showing repeating footage clips of people running and screaming with no obvious indication it was recorded earlier to try and make it seem like it was still happening.

  25. Colbert Gets It by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

    As usual, Stephen Colbert gets to the truthiness of the rush to be first.

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/416046/june-28-2012/cable-news-gaffe-on-obamacare-supreme-court-ruling

    --
    It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
  26. Re:emt? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    (Obviously, this may not apply outside of the US.)

    Trust me, it applies even more outside the US. Especially framed with context as it was. Plus, people with ESL* tend to look things up before blaming others for their ignorance :)

    *(ESL = English as a Second Language)

  27. Huge problem with media by b4upoo · · Score: 2

    The most pressing point is not about Boston and may have nothing to do with Al Quiida at all. The real problem is frequency of incidents.
    We are seeing more and more people or groups acting out in violent ways. The media and politicians can make remarks all day long but the public is
    missing the point. Here we have several bombs made from pressure cookers. About one week back we had some nut attack 14 people with some sort of box cutter or utility knife. In the mean time we have had organized killings of people in public jobs such as prison wardens. Then we have the recurring loonies who have urges to shoot school kids or even college kids. There are so many incidents it is hard to keep track of them. I do not believe it is bad diet or lead in the drinking water. I think we simply have a population under too much pressure and people are acting out. Yet our politicians will not address the real problems. For example many in congress would like more background checks on gun purchases. They are smart enough to give lip service to claim advancing the mental health care system but that is a huge lie. America has never funded mental health and is not about to provide decent funding for mental health. And it gets even worse. The fertilizer plant explosion in Texas may well be a worse problem than the Boston incident. The company involved has already admitted that they failed to have mandatory fire and incident equipment in place. In a very real way that company may well have been far more outrageous than the nut that placed the bombs in Boston. Yet media won't jump on it at all. I can also tell you that Ft. Lauderdale had a fertilizer plant burn a few decades ago and the responding firemen came down with cancer almost universally. Apparently the gasses expelled in a fertilizer plant fire tend to be very, very lethal in the long term. Where is the media on this? Frankly American news media is really in the crapper these days.

  28. Re:emt? by cffrost · · Score: 1

    Seriously, nobody can know all the acronyms from every field.

    I've found http://www.acronymfinder.com/ to be helpful. Results are are categorized by field.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  29. Blame 60 Minutes by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, seriously. Up until 60 Minutes came along News was considered a sort of loss leader for networks. It was something they felt required to have but no one expected to make money at it. They simply reported the facts and tried to guess the weather. Then 60 Minutes came along. No one expected it would make money. I mean a news show making money? No way! Surprise, it made money. It did REALLY well. Everyone had to have one and then they began to realize they could draw eyes to their news shows. Ever since then it's been downhill. We now have multiple channels dedicated to nothing but "news" and by god if there's nothing exciting going on we'll dig something up! Investigative reporting? Meh, not so much. That requires time and work and someone might scoop us! No, now they just report things as fast as they can and they make them as exciting as they can to draw eyes. The more fear the more people turn on their TV sets and gawk at the shows and yes inevitably the ads. the commercialization of "news" was one of THE worst things to happen to television and hell even print media. One need only look as far as the grocery checkout to figure out how that went too. Why we've even got news channels that skew and spin their views for specific markets. How else can you explain the Faux News channel and CNN and MSNBC all spinning the same stories in different directions? they have all targeted a demographic for their "news" and want eyeballs for their ads.

    Frankly it's pretty damned disgusting and disheartening. If you're old enough at all to remember a time when we had news shows with just a scrap of integrity you realize just how far we've fallen all in the name of making a fucking dollar. Bleah!

    P.S. Think I'm full of it? My citation after a 5 second Google search... http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102153/The-Transformation-of-Network-News.aspx

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    1. Re:Blame 60 Minutes by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Not that long ago, around 10'ish years every major news agency had investigative reporters. Living in Detroit, there was Steve Smith covering the Kwame scandals. Before that, he had stories on corruption in all kinds of other areas. Public service workers (tracking them working a few hours a week getting paid for 40 hrs), police corruption, utilities corruption, etc.. It was the highest rated show in Detroit for years. It was real journalism.

      Long before Kwame went to trial for anything big, they fired him. The best rated show in Detroit was canned for no visible reason. Other news agencies had their local reporter too. All of them were canned, and there went all investigative journalism in Detroit. AP stories was it, nothing else. About the same time, this happened in other major markets as well. I have relatives and friends in at least 8 other major cities. Nashville, Jersey, Chicago, etc..

      Maybe it was simply because of the money. Cheaper to get AP news than pay a reporter. But to lose viewers and ratings at the same time means they lost what they saved. Trust me, I'm not immune to noticing that companies do some really idiotic things to make a quick buck.. but I thought the News issue was bigger. Still do as a matter of fact. Way too many people were warning us about what was coming. You have to look to find them, but they were there. I remember a great speech by a celebrity concerned when they allowed Rupert Murdoch to monopolize most of the News Networks. "What happens when their interests, and the AP's interests, no longer match yours?" is a great quote. We never heard most of the people yelling "STOP IT", because most of the media was already under the control of less than a handful of people.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  30. Poynter.org by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it'll come up sooner or later if you follow Poynter -- they cover journalism / misdeeds of journalists / etc.

    They've got a pretty good roundup of criticisms, mostly in regard to some news channels refusing to apologize for their errors.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  31. He wrote for eWeek... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    ... and he considers himself above the fray of bad journalism?

    .
    Talk about the irony of narcissism.

  32. When there is no news make up some by Dorianny · · Score: 2

    News networks don't reports news. What they do is 24/7 real life drama. If they simply changed the "news" on their labels to "reality TV" all the issues would be solved.

  33. Re:emt? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Seriously? Emergency medical technician, aka paramedic. The guy in the ambulance who does the cardio-pulmonary resuscitation.

    Yes, but everyone knows what "paramedic" means, and I've never heard of an "EMT" before. Leave jargon to those who use it professionally, and if you must introduce some new acronym, please explain it first.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  34. Posts about stuff that doesn't belong on slashdot. by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

    This was a great interview. Thank you Slashdot for not being tunnel visioned into only tech.

  35. See also News Wipe by j-b0y · · Score: 1

    Charlie Brooker did a longer series (NewsWipe) on the problems of reporting in the 24h rolling news world and the overall decline of TV news journalism over the years; check them out on YouTube.

    --
    Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
  36. a scene out of Fahrenheit 451 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    At the beginning of the television age a half century ago Ray Bradbury predict the media's perverse relationship with realtime crime as a side-plot in his novel Fahrenheit 451. In the book there are even "fake crimes" or incorrect victims just to keep the excitement up. The OJ Bronco chase 20 years ago was a milestone in this genre. I personally remain skeptical about early so-called facts in a crime scene. Incorrect data gets passed around by rumor easily.

    I wonder how the newest media, social media, fits into this picture. Its faster, and "bottom up" compared to TV's "top down". But I dont think it is any more or less accurate than conventional broadcast media. I dont know if ray any insights in social media in the final years of his life.

  37. AT the Farmont Plaza Hotel by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    I noticed the Media kept saying the explosions where AT the Farmont Plaza Hotel for several hours afterwards. When even a cursory comparing of the many photos to Google maps showed they were in fact several hundred meters away.

  38. Re:What the real conspiracy is for 11/9 by s.petry · · Score: 1

    It's not a bad hypothetical, but it's not based in fact any more than what you read on conspiracy sites are fact, or what the Government released was fact. There are lots of hypothetical situations, not all of them require the Devil or Dr. Evil. People have been trained to believe that anyone asking questions is a lunatic, and trained further to never question it themselves. Truth is, we don't have a set of facts to deal with and nobody in the Government is willing to open an investigation, even though it has been proven over and over that their released explanations are impossible.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  39. Re:emt? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Voting here from California, EMT is a pretty standard term. I've heard it going back to at least the 90s. Maybe in your area it's not used as much, so you're not familiar with it.

  40. terrorism by jdwoods · · Score: 1

    Fight terrorism. Stop being afraid!

    --
    -- Jeff Woods