world

Media, old and new, take heat for Boston coverage

43 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

Being forced to go to ancient history to cherry-pick an example only reinforces the fact that the extreme left long ago renounced violence of that type

I'm just sure the radical left wing extremists would never ever in a million years resort to taking innocent life to further their causes. They promised it after all and when it comes to trusting somebody there ain't nobody better then your friendly terrorist to shake hands on it with..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They're starting to turn out to be have much more in common with violent left wing extremist anti-war protesters...The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack, according to U.S. officials familiar with the interviews.

The supposition: "Leftists are opposed to wars against Muslims; Muslims are opposed to wars against Muslims, therefore Muslims are leftists," would not pass Logic 101 (One could just as easily and wrongly argue: "Barack Obama is considered a leftist; Obama supports the war in Afghanistan, therefore leftists support the war in Afghanistan.")

Members of the media are far too professional and intelligent to fall for that grossly flawed logic. What they know is that, by planting bombs primarily directed at complete strangers -- indiscriminately killing and injuring men, women and children -- the method used by the two brothers is completely in line with the tactics of the pro-war, pro-violence, extreme right wing.

It is only by the grace of God that we did not have a horrendous body and injury count not occuring in decade of the 70's

Being forced to go to ancient history to cherry-pick an example only reinforces the fact that the extreme left long ago renounced violence of that type -- and the four decades since that time without a single example proves it. By contrast, the extreme right-wing, by contrast, has never renounced violence. For them, violence is always an option on the table. 48 out of 77 domestic bomb plots since 9/11 -- note that this is not ancient history -- attest to this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lacking a single example of a leftist group in the United States that has plotted mayhem directed against people in this way, the media properly omitted them from suspicion.

There was no lacking of an example and no justifiable reason for not including left wing extremism in the disgraceful history of domestic terrorism in the U.S. by the media while trying to speculate on who might be responsible. It is only by the grace of God that we did not have a horrendous body and injury count not occuring in decade of the 70's that would have been on the same par as the Oklahoma city bombing in the 90's and now the 2013 marathon bombing. The Vietnam era anti-war movement radicals, the weathermen had plotted and planned this action and if it wasn't for the accident that killed three of their own in building the bombs to be used the carnage at this dance would have been horrendous:

So they turned to what even they themselves now recognize as terrorism. They began building bombs to detonate at sites of their purported oppressors, like a hall in Fort Dix, N.J., that would be hosting an Army dance. But on March 6, 1970, the bomb meant for the American soldiers went off prematurely, blowing up the Greenwich Village town house where its violence-drunk manufacturers were living. Three of them were killed.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2003/06/notes_from_the_underground.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you seem to be arguing that the media should have added one more false accusation to its list: that of left-wing extremists.

False? They're starting to turn out to be have much more in common with violent left wing extremist anti-war protesters than a pair of Islamic hard core Jihadis trying to restore the glory of Islam by killing infidels and being martyred in the attempt so that they can get into their twisted version of heaven.

The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack, according to U.S. officials familiar with the interviews.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/boston-bombing-suspect-cites-us-wars-as-motivation-officials-say/2013/04/23/324b9cea-ac29-11e2-b6fd-ba6f5f26d70e_print.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They only cited cases cherry picked going back to the 90's to re-enforce already perceived biases. I would think one one also wish his or hers preferred news source would use the most current events...

In summary, while some of the media can be faulted for pointing the finger at wrong suspects, per the article, you seem to be arguing that the media should have added one more false accusation to its list: that of left-wing extremists.

People who judged the situation in Boston obviously saw bombs planted along a route where it was purposely designed to cause human death and injury. Let me repeat that: purposely designed to cause human death and injury. In this topic, not one example has been brought forward of any left-wing extremist group that has planted bombs with a primary intent to kill and injure people -- in anything remotely resembling Boston.. Many examples are there -- 48 out of 77 since 9/2011 -- of right-wing extremist bomb plots, and most of those place human beings as the targets.

There are also many examples of Islamic extremists whose plots primarily target innocent people. The primary intent and purpose being human death and casualties in a public space is what caused the media to correctly posit that the above two general groups, along with the crazed loner, were to be suspect. Lacking a single example of a leftist group in the United States that has plotted mayhem directed against people in this way, the media properly omitted them from suspicion. (And they were clearly correct in doing so.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just in case the link doesn't work story was reported by The Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- One of the five self-described anarchists arrested last week for attempting to blow up a local bridge signed the lease for a West Side warehouse where about a dozen members of the Occupy Cleveland group live.

In a one-hour recording of a Friday evening general assembly meeting of the group posted on its website http://occupycleveland.com/live-stream/, occupy leaders expressed concern about Anthony Hayne's name being on the lease, which strengthens his link to the group.

"We have a person facing terrorism charges on the lease of our warehouse," said one of the leaders. "If this gets into the media, it would be a disaster."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The simple fact is they were not Occupy-associated.

Suspect in bridge bombing plot signed lease on Occupy Cleveland warehouse

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/05/terror_suspect_signed_lease_on.html

A forged signature I suppose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back on topic please.

Fact: Left wing terrorists and left wing terrorism exists....Unless you can prove that left wing terrorists acts involving the use of bombs are some sort of figment of my imagination ..

Well, let's take a look at what "the media" -- including Fox, New York Post, and others -- seem to already know that you don't. Nothing, by the way, can be "proven" to anyone who checks his brain at the door, and/or who wishes to remain willfully ignorant of the truth.

The plan in Boston was purposely designed to target and kill and/or injure innocent people. No attempt was made to limit human casualties. As with the right-wing plan to target innocent people at an MLK parade; as with the right-wing bomb that maimed the Scottsdale, AZ, man; as with the right-wing militia attack on Oklahoma City; as with the right-wing attacks (and subsequent underground support for) the bomber of another gathering at a sporting event, the Olympics.

With the examples of right-wing extremist attacks all too abundant -- 48 out of 77 since 9/11 -- there is not a single example given in the past two decades of a "left-wing extremist organization" planning an attack whose target and intent is to kill or injure people. Using a home-made bomb to take out a bulldozer in a mountain area, or to damage a remote section of pipeline under construction -- while serious crimes -- do not rise to the level of the kind of "terrorism" the purposefully targets ordinary men, women and children. At least not in the minds of most reasonable people.

It was less than 6 months ago and just culminated with the guilty pleas of the Occupy associated bomb plotters in Cleveland.

The simple fact is they were not Occupy-associated. They may have associated themselves with Occupy events -- which are free and open to anyone, but the Occupy movement totally rejects those kinds of actions. And, in fact, the would-be bridge-bombers dis-associated themselves from the Occupy movement, claiming it was not nearly extreme enough for them.

"From the earliest point in a seven-month undercover inquiry starting in October, an FBI informant said the group of suspects expressed "displeasure at the (Occupy) crowd's unwillingness to act violently.'' http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-01/bridge-bomb-plot/54661638/1

They only cited cases cherry picked going back to the 90's to re-enforce already perceived biases.

Most intelligent and reasonable people can tell the difference between attacks that purposely target people and attacks on non-human targets (i.e. sabotage). Hopefully, most people can distinguish between left-wing individuals and anarchists. Dishonestly smearing the Occupy movement as was done above puts one in no position whatsoever to judge the biases of others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I always laugh now when I encounter people disparaging opinions, especially when they can't put two meaningful facts together.

Another boorish personal attack? Fact: Left wing terrorists and left wing terrorism exists. Fact: It wasn't mentioned at all by the media ( well maybe if you dig into the weeds for opinion pieces) when they were speculating as to who was behind the Boston Marathon bombing.

Pretty simple to put the two facts together to see that it adds up to some pretty one sided biased reporting.

If you are claiming the media should have mentioned a left-wing possibility behind the Boston bombing because of the Lee-Discovery Channel incident, that is also laughable

I'm claiming the media should have been mentioned a left-wing possibilty because exists. Unless you can prove that left wing terrorists acts involving the use of bombs are some sort of figment of my imagination then they are a fact also and the media has the utmost obligation to report the all the facts . When they indulged in speculating on who might have been behind the Marathon bombings the media failed in that most basic obligation. It did not report all the facts as to all the of ideology of those that have been behind domestic terrorism in the U.S. And to make it even worse it never mentioned what is usually considered to be an extremely relevant factor which is the most recent case. It was less than 6 months ago and just culminated with the guilty pleas of the Occupy associated bomb plotters in Cleveland. They only cited cases cherry picked going back to the 90's to re-enforce already perceived biases. I would think one one also wish his or hers preferred news source would use the most current events in their reporting along with a trip down memory lane to the 90's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not believe you were being intentionally misleading and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but an opinion piece no matter how good and balanced it is, and his is quite balanced actually is still nothing more than an opinion piece.

The esteemed and extremely wise -- in my opinion -- management guru, Peter Drucker, used to say "Opinions give meaning to facts." I always laugh now when I encounter people disparaging opinions, especially when they can't put two meaningful facts together.

If you are claiming the media should have mentioned a left-wing possibility behind the Boston bombing because of the Lee-Discovery Channel incident, that is also laughable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For those who equate "environmental militants" with left-wing extremism -- a rather tenuous connection -- the CNN article above is clearly not "absolutely zero mention."

I do hope you realize you've posted excerpts and links from an Opinion piece and not a news article. I do not believe you were being intentionally misleading and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but an opinion piece no matter how good and balanced it is, and his is quite balanced actually is still nothing more than an opinion piece. Nothing changes that the main-stream media articles did not consider left-wing terrorists at all during their speculations and you've only proved that if there were any mentions at all of different types of terrorists besides right wing and islamic that it was just regulated to the backwaters of opinion pieces not news articles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That you prefer a media that is biased and keeps its readers ignorant to any other facts that may not show your political views in nothing more than a positive light.

I prefer a media that is intelligent. Not even the gutter-level New York Post was not dumb enough to surmise a left-wing extremist cause within the bounds of reasonable prediction. Why? Perhaps it is due to facts like these:

"Of the 380 individuals indicted for acts of political violence or for conspiring to carry out such attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, 77 were able to obtain explosives or the components necessary to build a bomb, according to a count by the New America Foundation.

"Of those, 48 were right-wing extremists, 23 were militants inspired by al Qaeda's ideology, five have been described as anarchists and one was an environmentalist terrorist...

"The only bombing attack carried out by an extremist in the United States during the past 12 years was in 2004 when Dennis Mahon, a white supremacist, sent a homemade bomb to Don Logan, the African-American city diversity director of Scottsdale, Arizona, who was maimed when the package exploded in his arms.

"n January 2010, Kevin Harpham, a white supremacist, placed a backpack filled with explosives along the route of a Martin Luther King Jr. parade in Spokane, Washington. Fortunately, city workers spotted the suspicious package and police were able to defuse the bomb before the parade began. Three years earlier the feds arrested a group of men in Alabama calling themselves "The Free Militia" who had manufactured 130 homemade hand grenades.

"By contrast to the dozens of right-wing extremists and al Qaeda-inspired militants who have obtained explosives or bomb components, since 9/11 there has been only one case of an environmental militant doing so. [And this was James Lee, who was not affiliated with any environmental group, but a mentally disturbed man who often lived on the streets.]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/opinion/bergen-bombings

With absolutely zero mentions of left-wing extremists showing the clear media bias toward those on the right side of the political spectrum.

For those who equate "environmental militants" with left-wing extremism -- a rather tenuous connection -- the CNN article above is clearly not "absolutely zero mention." With 48 out of 77 indictments for bombs sourced to the extreme right-wing, the bias towards giving them mention seems well-earned. With only one incident out of 77 -- and an arguable one at that -- of a "left-winger," it is someone who gets so upset at the reality of the odds is really the biased one. Such a person clearly is not fit to judge the media.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In Boston, the question of whether the act could be one of a crazed loner was frequently mentioned and high on the list, along with Islamic radicals and right-wing extremists.

With absolutely zero mentions of left-wing extremists showing the clear media bias toward those on the right side of the political spectrum. Left wing extremists and left wing terrorists exist and they use bombs to commit terrorism. These two simple facts are more than enough justification toalso include left wing terrorism and groups in any speculations as to who might have been responsible. It is rather sad that you actually prefer a media that does not do its best to provide its readers with unbiased facts so that they may make up their own minds. That you prefer a media that is biased and keeps its readers ignorant to any other facts that may not show your political views in nothing more than a positive light. Your close to broaching that you actually approve of a media run much along the lines of state run propaganda operation Yabits by your continued defense that of the coverage here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tell that to the hostages he took.

The idea that it the politics of hostage-takers matters to hostages is a curious one indeed. Resorting to using hostages as a shield for coming up on the short end in an argument is understandable, however.

People depend on responsible media to detach itself from that kind of cheap demagoguery and provide rational analysis and opinions that stick close to the target. In Boston, the question of whether the act could be one of a crazed loner was frequently mentioned and high on the list, along with Islamic radicals and right-wing extremists.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

He doesn't count,

Tell that to the hostages he took.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Media musta have been asleep then. No arrows were fired at all in that direction by them during the whole speculation phase. I guess this guy doesn't count:

He doesn't count, unless you can name the organization he was part of that condoned his actions. (His manifesto also rails against immigration too, a favorite conservative issue. Nothing is more important than saving ants? Sounds more like a crazed individual.)

The "eco-terrorists" mentioned above did not target the general population or people, as given in the example of Boston, Oklahoma City, MLK Day, etc.. It is highly likely that a member of a left-wing environmental organization tipped off the authorities to them.

Keep firing those arrows; you're bound to get one somewhere in the vicinity of the target one of these days.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

When any member or group of a leftist organization declares they are going to direct violent efforts against the general population, and they actually carry out such an attack using bombs purposely designed to kill and injure an unsuspecting public, then any arrow fired in that direction by the media will certainly be on-target.

Media musta have been asleep then. No arrows were fired at all in that direction by them during the whole speculation phase. I guess this guy doesn't count:

Police shot to death a man armed with several bombs who held three hostages Wednesday at the Discovery Communications building. Authorities said the hostages were safe.

From his manifesto:

“Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”

Not exactly your Tim McVeigh type.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-kill-discovery-building-gunman/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have the 96 Atlanta bombings, the Oklahoma City attack, and the planned bombing of an MLK Day parade -- all attacks specifically against people planned by extremists on the right wing, and not one single incident of that type by anyone on the left.

We also have.... 'Eco-terrorist' gets 20 years for plotting bombing campaign.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hD6PIenExMm30T2DJ2hA4saHu5Yw

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those groups are not as known for that kind of style attack as opposed to many radical Islamists.

Oh, get real. The attacks in Atlanta in 1996 were shrapnel bombs, just as the ones in Boston were. One of the attacks used two shrapnel bombs -- exactly like Boston -- with the second one timed to explode when first responders were on the scene.

After the failed first attempt of the WTC bombing, there was a growing consensus in Washington that the Atlanta Olympic bombing could be the work of AQ. Which is what? An Islamic radical terrorist group.

Keep in mind that the perpetrator of those attacks spent seven years in hiding, and when captured, he was wearing new shoes and had his hair neatly trimmed. The man obviously had help from his underground network of right-wing extremist sympathizers.

That we NOW know it to have been. But these right-wing domestic extremists while concerning are not even close to a threat as radical Islam.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That is not true, CNN early on they eluded that the terrorists could possibly be fudemental Islamic terrorists. CNN DID speak that the attacks could possibly be the work of AQ, but then later had to do a redaction.

I find it very odd and suspicious that someone who claims to have spent time in the newsmedia industry does not appear to know the difference between a "redaction" and a retraction.

Of course, I know the difference and that is what my sources have found it to be, which are credible sources. Now, I will admit that I mistyped and meant to write retraction, sorry for that.

CNN never issued any retraction for mentioning the possibility of Al Qaeda involvement. A "retraction" has a very specific and formal definition when it comes to journalism, and issuing one is very noteworthy.

Which was done and yes, I know what the definition is.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No media source wants to be "totally wrong." There is a bullseye, then there is the target around it, and then there is all the space that is completely off-target. Why would any media source purposely shoot an off-target arrow just to be considered "balanced" against shooting one that's on-target, though not a bullseye?

When any member or group of a leftist organization declares they are going to direct violent efforts against the general population, and they actually carry out such an attack using bombs purposely designed to kill and injure an unsuspecting public, then any arrow fired in that direction by the media will certainly be on-target. We have the 96 Atlanta bombings, the Oklahoma City attack, and the planned bombing of an MLK Day parade -- all attacks specifically against people planned by extremists on the right wing, and not one single incident of that type by anyone on the left.

It is extremely likely that anyone advocating violence of the type in Boston among the left-leaning groups I am personally aware of would be promptly brought to the attention of the proper authorities. (I suspect that is how the authorities were able to sniff out and infiltrate the idiots in Cleveland who rejected the movement.)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

as to what I was referencing as also a group that uses the same tactics that the Harvard professor seems to have not included in her assessments.

Anyone who is trying to pass themselves off as policing the media in the interest of fairness should be exposed as a fraud when claiming any group whose principles clearly state "non-violence" are using the "same tactics" as groups that endorse violence, as extremist right-wingers do. (One can find he declaration of non-violence on the same site.)

Now, if the media made a supposition of a group with no history of using violence, one which declares itself committed to non-violence, they would have been totally wrong.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That is not true, CNN early on they eluded that the terrorists could possibly be fudemental Islamic terrorists. CNN DID speak that the attacks could possibly be the work of AQ, but then later had to do a redaction.

I find it very odd and suspicious that someone who claims to have spent time in the newsmedia industry does not appear to know the difference between a "redaction" and a retraction.

CNN never issued any retraction for mentioning the possibility of Al Qaeda involvement. A "retraction" has a very specific and formal definition when it comes to journalism, and issuing one is very noteworthy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yabits,

Media got it totally wrong it wasn't Neo-nazi's or a reboot of Tim McVeigh not even sure why your even trying defend crappy reporting that gets it totally wrong. It's almost like you approve of reporting that turns out to be full of it just because it makes the right look bad and that's all you really seem to care about and the actual truth be damned, right Yabits? This for you is just trying to make stick whatever you can to smear people on the right and the facts be damned?

It's the only conclusion that I can reach by your defense of the media nonsense here.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Those groups are not as known for that kind of style attack as opposed to many radical Islamists.

Oh, get real. The attacks in Atlanta in 1996 were shrapnel bombs, just as the ones in Boston were. One of the attacks used two shrapnel bombs -- exactly like Boston -- with the second one timed to explode when first responders were on the scene.

Keep in mind that the perpetrator of those attacks spent seven years in hiding, and when captured, he was wearing new shoes and had his hair neatly trimmed. The man obviously had help from his underground network of right-wing extremist sympathizers.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If there is bias, it is clearly against those who would so much as ask a question regarding possible extreme right-wing involvement coming during the week of the anniversary of the worst domestic terrorist attack in US history.

Problem with your lengthy analysis is that, even though it could have been an extreme right-wing terrorist domestic group. The way and manner in which the attack happened suggests otherwise. Those groups are not as known for that kind of style attack as opposed to many radical Islamists.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

On the NPR link, which is a grand total of 53 seconds in length, Dina Temple-Raston says this:

"Officials told us they have some promising leads although no actual smoking gun. They expect this case will take weeks, not months, to solve. The thinking, as we've been reporting, is that this a domestic extremist attack. And officials are leaning that way largely because of the timing of the attack. April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals. There's the Columbine anniversary, there's Hitler's birthday, there's the Oklahoma City bombing. The assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco."

So the fact that NPR reports that officials have been considering the timing of the attacks -- and why they justify that timing has raised the hackles of conservatives and ultra-conservatives -- who apparently want everyone in their ranks to celebrate Hitler's birthday without any suspicions raised every time a bomb goes off.

The attack however, is just as NPR and its experts reported: a domestic extremist attack.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The ABC link mentions the April 19 anniversaries of Waco and Oklahoma City and wonders (via text on screen): Could this be homegrown terror?"

The answer, of course, is YES! The younger brother spent half his young life in America and was a US citizen. The older brother had lived here for years too, and other family members are well established here.

The ABC link is not even 90 seconds in length and features two speakers, one of them being Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Yet in the text information, the assembler of the link states "no other expert voices" were featured. Really? Given only 90 seconds, we're supposed to believe that? (How long does any news-related show go on with only two voices?)

If there is bias, it is clearly against those who would so much as ask a question regarding possible extreme right-wing involvement coming during the week of the anniversary of the worst domestic terrorist attack in US history.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Regarding CNN, here's the extent of the nefarious comment that got this Jacobson character sounding his "unfair-suspicion-of-neoNazi-group" alarm. It comes roughly two minutes into the 3:18 video:

Blitzer: "One intriguing notion, one intriguing thought here and I'm curious Mike and I'll ask Matt to weigh in as well, it is a state holiday today in Massachusetts called Patriot's Day and who knows if that had anything at all to with these twin explosions?"

Answer (Mike): "That's always a possibility.... you never know. I've learned to say ''Never say never,' when it comes to incidents like this...We still do not know the source of these explosions, Wolf."

Blitzer: "Yes, we don't know the source and we want to be cautious. We don't want to overly speculate on what happened...."

So here we have a CNN commentator merely asking a question of his "expert" guests. The Jacobson character makes no attempt to identify the person responding to Blitzer's fair question. From my research it appears to be Mike Bouchard, a retired ATF officer and currently president of Security Dynamics Corporation.

Again, leaping to the defense of even on oblique reference and questioning about any right-wing extremist group is quite heart-warming.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

He also provides the links below on his site:

The defense of neo-Nazi groups by conservatives is really heart-warming.

As the MSNBC link clearly states: "..it's also important to recognize that the recipe was shared and lauded by Stormfront, which is a neo-Nazi website, and the whole idea of leaderless resistance, which comes out of the far-right, neo-Nazi, patriot movement also spread over to Al Qaeda groups. So, my guess is this probably is a do-it-yourselfer kind of individual or individuals -- perhaps a small group -- either one that was inspired by Al Qaeda or perhaps neo-Nazis or anti-government patriot groups, who have been known to act on Patriot's Day. So the date of the attack suggests that we not overlook the possibility that this could be an American anti-government group."

The professor was not far off in her guessing.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Great article.

Disagree the article is nothing but a self serving "see were the good media and social media is bad". The article totally fails to mention that the FBI released the pictures of the suspects and asked the public for its help to identify them. The article absolutely fails in telling the reader the most important reason that Sunil Tripathi was mistakenly identified as one of the suspects. It was because he unfortunately happens to bear a pretty uncanny resemblance to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. That is the only reason.

Social media did not do this because he was a "tea party member" an "NRA" nut or whatever "context' the Ben Smith's of the main stream media feel they are obligated to "spin" to the suit their political agendas.

Sunil Tripathi

http://globalgrind.com/news/411-sunil-tripathi-missing-brown-university-alleged-suspect-boston-marathon-bombings-photos

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

http://globalgrind.com/news/boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-caught-watertown-boat-photos

There was no malice involved by social media as the article tries to imply and the appropriate and from what I can tell, very sincere apologies by Reddit have been made. It was mistaken identity and it does happen and anyone who bothers to check the links can pretty much see why.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sail, Thanks for that link. I knew I saw many of those media "Max Headrooms" prattling the same tune. But there are some who prefer for those videos to disappear down the Orwellian memory hole rather than face the fact. They would also rather make endless apologetic excuses for the far-left-loving media morons.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Let's not forget how EVERY "responsible " media source(MSNBC CBS ABC CNN XYZ) postulated the strong probability the bomber(s) as "rightwinger gun-nutter"

Surf, the good Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson was keeping track of the bias on his blog.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/add-boston-marathon-bombing-to-pile-of-failed-eliminationist-narratives/

He also provides the links below on his site:

MSNBC Link:

http://mrctv.org/videos/msnbc-brings-harvard-professor-suspect-%E2%80%98far-right%E2%80%99-may-be-responsible-boston-attack-0

CNN link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yJXo2UnMt14#!

ABC Link

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/abc-speculates-was-boston-homegrown-terror-features-mark-potok-extreme-right

NPR Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NayS5xeVbLE

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@yabits

Wrong. No news outlet ruled out Islamic or foreign extremists. They just didn't rule out domestic-based extremists either. Some commentators weighed in with their own opinions, including former FBI and government investigators. But no individual spoke for the entire network, and everyone I heard postulating made it clear that it was just their gut feeling.

Your defense of domestic, violent extremists is quite touching.

Nope, you got it totally wrong.

That is not true, CNN early on they eluded that the terrorists could possibly be fudemental Islamic terrorists. CNN DID speak that the attacks could possibly be the work of AQ, but then later had to do a redaction. So you are totally wrong on that. This is one the reasons why CNN got so much flack. They jumped the gun, had they been more serious and paid better attention to actual reporting than ratings, this mistake could have easily been avoided. Because its a ratings driven industry CNN is not actually hurting, but they are trying to retake their former number one spot that now belongs to FOX for quite awhile. Msnbc all around is just a mouthpiece for the left, nothing more. Since Phil Griffin has been at the helm of NBC, he has seen show fail, time after time again and the latest rant that came out of Barney Franks mouth proves that NO matter what, msnbc HAS to politicize every issue.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Old pitchfork mob justice lives on in new high tech media.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

the article is nothing but a self serving

LOL! With the title "Media, old and new..." who was serving themselves?

Let's not forget how EVERY "responsible " media source(MSNBC CBS ABC CNN XYZ) postulated the strong probability the bomber(s) as "rightwinger gun-nutter". Oops, our bad.

Wrong. No news outlet ruled out Islamic or foreign extremists. They just didn't rule out domestic-based extremists either. Some commentators weighed in with their own opinions, including former FBI and government investigators. But no individual spoke for the entire network, and everyone I heard postulating made it clear that it was just their gut feeling.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let's not forget how EVERY "responsible " media source(MSNBC CBS ABC CNN XYZ) postulated the strong probability the bomber(s) as "rightwinger gun-nutter". Oops, our bad.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Great article.

Disagree the article is nothing but a self serving "see were the good media and social media is bad". The article totally fails to mention that the FBI released the pictures of the suspects and asked the public for its help to identify them. The article absolutely fails in telling the reader the most important reason that Sunil Tripathi was mistakenly identified as one of the suspects. It was because he unfortunately happens to bear a pretty uncanny resemblance to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. That is the only reason.

Social media did not do this because he was a "tea party member" an "NRA" nut or whatever "context' the Ben Smith's of the main stream media feel they are obligated to "spin" to the suit their political agendas.

Sunil Tripathi

http://globalgrind.com/news/411-sunil-tripathi-missing-brown-university-alleged-suspect-boston-marathon-bombings-photos

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

http://globalgrind.com/news/boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-caught-watertown-boat-photos

There was no malice involved by social media as the article tries to imply and the appropriate and from what I can tell, very sincere apologies by Reddit have been made. It was mistaken identity and it does happen and anyone who bothers to check the links can pretty much see why.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

"The pen is mightier than the sword" Old saying. "The keyboard is mightier than the sword" Old saying updated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great article.

My thoughts and prayers are with the Tripathi family. While Boston rightfully celebrates, this poor family has experienced something horrible. Anyone who has ever experienced a loved one gone missing knows the agony of each day of waiting.

In my opinion, the media should join Reddit in helping in the search.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites