Originally Posted By mawnck >>Suspect in custody.<< >>DOJ denies any arrests have been made.<< America! Where you can choose your news!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Where you can choose your news!<< I choose Fox, where there's not only a suspect in custody, he's Middle Eastern, was personally tackled and arrested by Chuck Norris, will be tried by Matlock, and will be sentenced to prison and tortured by those nice white boys in Zero Dark Thirty.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I choose Fox<< You can always go with CNN. <a href="http://gawker.com/5994911/marathon-bombing-suspect-has-been-arrested-and-is-in-custody-but-has-not-been-arrested-and-may-not-exist" target="_blank">http://gawker.com/5994911/mara...ot-exist</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck Gawker chronicles the hilarity, as all the live news agencies in the country stumble over each other reporting each other's contradictory "scoops". <a href="http://gawker.com/5994895/authorities-id-possible-suspect-in-retail-store-security+cam-video" target="_blank">http://gawker.com/5994895/auth...am-video</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc I saw. My Twitter feed was basically an episode of the newsroom. I don't follow CNN or any of their reporters, so the mocking reached a pretty epic level.
Originally Posted By mawnck Huffpo headline (on their front page): "Media Blows It AGAIN!" Article (with a different headline) here: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/cnn-boston-arrests-media-nbc_n_3102680.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...680.html</a> >>UPDATE: A CNN spokesperson defended the network's handling of the story in a statement sent to HuffPost's Michael Calderone: "CNN had three credible sources on both local and federal levels. Based on this information we reported our findings. As soon as our sources came to us with new information we adjusted our reporting."<< Translation: Our "credible" sources don't know what they're talking about so get off our case. PS: Am fully aware of the irony of HuffPo going on about this.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Contrary to widespread reporting, no arrest has been made in connection with the Boston Marathon attack. Over the past day and a half, there have been a number of press reports based on information from unofficial sources that has been inaccurate. Since these stories often have unintended consequences, we ask the media, particularly at this early stage of the investigation, to exercise caution and attempt to verify information through appropriate official channels before reporting.<< - The FBI <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/boston/press-releases/2013/no-arrest-made-in-bombing-investigation" target="_blank">http://www.fbi.gov/boston/pres...tigation</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <will be tried by Matlock> That librul who endorsed Obama? I think most Fox viewers probably took Matlock out of their rotation after 2008.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<was personally tackled and arrested by Chuck Norris>> All I know is the Nazi's surrendered one day after he was born.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think most Fox viewers probably took Matlock out of their rotation after 2008.<< Would Fox News have told them about Matlock though?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Honestly I think some just don't know how to change the channel and they just leave it there. I can't tell you how many times I've gone over to my grandma's house because "the tv is acting up," because she just hit a bunch of buttons.
Originally Posted By mawnck A guide to who reported what: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/boston-marathon-arrest-reports-2013-4" target="_blank">http://www.businessinsider.com...s-2013-4</a> Also: >>Problem w CNN, FNC saying sources led them astray: NBC News was RIGHT all day. Good sources WERE available.<< https://twitter.com/wjcarter/status/324624720286846976
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt CNN: "This individual may be known or unknown." WTF does that mean?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>WTF does that mean?<< The answer to this question may be known or unknown.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Buzzfeed has posted a succinct and somewhat comedic timeline of the shoddy journalism coverage of the Boston bombing suspect: <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/suspect-in-boston-bombing-reportedly-in-custody" target="_blank">http://www.buzzfeed.com/elliev...-custody</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Buzzfeed has posted a succinct and somewhat comedic timeline of the shoddy journalism coverage of the Boston bombing suspect: <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/elliev...-custody" target="_blank">http://www.buzzfeed.com/elliev...-custody</a>" Seriously, who gives a sh!t? The "media" has been what it is since time immemorial. ecdc provided a link earlier to all Titanic passengers being safe. Surely we all remember President Dewey, because the Chicago Tribune told us he defeated Truman. Nobody has ever claimed news reporting is perfect. In fact, it's as inexact as it has ever been. With today's technology however, and the instant gratification many people feel is their entitlement, there's a rush to be first with anything that sounds good. Don't blame the media for that, blame the consumer. And for an internet website like Buzzfeed to criticize the media, that's nothing short of the triggerman making fun of a victim for bleeding too much from the bullet wound. Irony abounds. I don't like the incessant "Breaking News" theme all news outlets have assumed over the years any more than anyone else. But please don't pretend this is a new phenomenon, or even relatively new. The news has always been this way. Always.
