Marathon Bombing and the Media

[BringBackFergy]

When the bombing first happened, I listened to the radio coverage and the reports were all over the place. Two dead, 12 dead, another bomb at the library, backpacks being disarmed, etc.

 

Then the big news - FBI and law enforcement at the hospital with guns drawn at the bedside of a Saudi national on a student visa. How the media learned of this event at the hospital probably centers on hospital staff calling into some media outlet. Nonetheless, we waited for the FBI and local police to declare this student a suspect.

 

At the press conference, the police commissioner was riddled with questions about this student, an imminent arrest, the media dug deep into his history, roommates, education, etc.

 

Now I understand "Freedom of the Press" and the constitutional protections afforded members of the media (so as to avoid a government run press), but isn't there a time where the FBI and local law enforcement can tell the media members to "F#@k off, we're not telling you a thing!!" I say this because what if...and this may sound crazy...the FBI and police decided that the Saudi student is an actual suspect but in order to surveil him, watch him and monitor his calls, the FBI had to say he is no longer a suspect. If they have a suspect in mind, isn't it better to watch that person and hopefully connect that suspect to a larger organization (if there is one).

 

ChefJim, NoSaint and others were addressing this yesterday on "OTW" and it was the exactly what I was thinking when the FBI said the student was no longer a suspect...maybe, just maybe, they are giving a suspect a false sense of security to see where the suspect goes, who they call and meet with so they can arrest a larger group.

 

I just assume let the police and FBI handle their investigation; the media should report the facts (accurately) and stop with the incessant speculation and conjecture. We have the best investigators in the world. Let them do their jobs...they have a plan.

[Jauronimo]

When the bombing first happened, I listened to the radio coverage and the reports were all over the place. Two dead, 12 dead, another bomb at the library, backpacks being disarmed, etc.

 

Then the big news - FBI and law enforcement at the hospital with guns drawn at the bedside of a Saudi national on a student visa. How the media learned of this event at the hospital probably centers on hospital staff calling into some media outlet. Nonetheless, we waited for the FBI and local police to declare this student a suspect.

 

At the press conference, the police commissioner was riddled with questions about this student, an imminent arrest, the media dug deep into his history, roommates, education, etc.

 

Now I understand "Freedom of the Press" and the constitutional protections afforded members of the media (so as to avoid a government run press), but isn't there a time where the FBI and local law enforcement can tell the media members to "F#@k off, we're not telling you a thing!!" I say this because what if...and this may sound crazy...the FBI and police decided that the Saudi student is an actual suspect but in order to surveil him, watch him and monitor his calls, the FBI had to say he is no longer a suspect. If they have a suspect in mind, isn't it better to watch that person and hopefully connect that suspect to a larger organization (if there is one).

 

ChefJim, NoSaint and others were addressing this yesterday on "OTW" and it was the exactly what I was thinking when the FBI said the student was no longer a suspect...maybe, just maybe, they are giving a suspect a false sense of security to see where the suspect goes, who they call and meet with so they can arrest a larger group.

 

I just assume let the police and FBI handle their investigation; the media should report the facts (accurately) and stop with the incessant speculation and conjecture. We have the best investigators in the world. Let them do their jobs...they have a plan.

But what if they don't?!?!

 

-Joe the five pack

[BringBackFergy]

But what if they don't?!?!

 

-Joe the five pack

Joe was obviously looking for the latest updates, and in a perfect world (especially in this day and age of immediate information at your fingertips) everything would be solved within the first 48 hours. It would be great to identify this scumbag and string him (or her...have to be PC) up by their fingernails. Unfortunately, patience is no longer our strong suit as a society. We want everything immediately (used to be send a letter by mail, then fax it, then email it, then text it, now Tweet it...it's tiring). Others have said this before...but with a 24 hour news cycle, they fill their shows with so much crap... repetitive views and guesses, Joe wants answers!! I do too...but I'm willing to wait and see what the FBI and police find.

[Jauronimo]

Joe was obviously looking for the latest updates, and in a perfect world (especially in this day and age of immediate information at your fingertips) everything would be solved within the first 48 hours. It would be great to identify this scumbag and string him (or her...have to be PC) up by their fingernails. Unfortunately, patience is no longer our strong suit as a society. We want everything immediately (used to be send a letter by mail, then fax it, then email it, then text it, now Tweet it...it's tiring). Others have said this before...but with a 24 hour news cycle, they fill their shows with so much crap... repetitive views and guesses, Joe wants answers!! I do too...but I'm willing to wait and see what the FBI and police find.

But what if there are no answers yet? The police and FBI are asking the PUBLIC for help identifying suspects and generating leads. Is anyone else shocked by how lost and truly lacking law enforcement appears? If this happened in Chicago where theres cameras literally everywhere (and murders go unsolved every day) this case would have been cracked in 6 hours.

 

-ehT giB Joe 5 pack

[KD in CA]

When the bombing first happened, I listened to the radio coverage and the reports were all over the place. Two dead, 12 dead, another bomb at the library, backpacks being disarmed, etc.

 

Then the big news - FBI and law enforcement at the hospital with guns drawn at the bedside of a Saudi national on a student visa. How the media learned of this event at the hospital probably centers on hospital staff calling into some media outlet. Nonetheless, we waited for the FBI and local police to declare this student a suspect.

 

At the press conference, the police commissioner was riddled with questions about this student, an imminent arrest, the media dug deep into his history, roommates, education, etc.

 

Now I understand "Freedom of the Press" and the constitutional protections afforded members of the media (so as to avoid a government run press), but isn't there a time where the FBI and local law enforcement can tell the media members to "F#@k off, we're not telling you a thing!!" I say this because what if...and this may sound crazy...the FBI and police decided that the Saudi student is an actual suspect but in order to surveil him, watch him and monitor his calls, the FBI had to say he is no longer a suspect. If they have a suspect in mind, isn't it better to watch that person and hopefully connect that suspect to a larger organization (if there is one).

 

ChefJim, NoSaint and others were addressing this yesterday on "OTW" and it was the exactly what I was thinking when the FBI said the student was no longer a suspect...maybe, just maybe, they are giving a suspect a false sense of security to see where the suspect goes, who they call and meet with so they can arrest a larger group.

 

I just assume let the police and FBI handle their investigation; the media should report the facts (accurately) and stop with the incessant speculation and conjecture. We have the best investigators in the world. Let them do their jobs...they have a plan.

If he is a suspect they would certainly be taking their time to ensure they don't violate his rights which could jeopardize a criminal case against him.

 

 

Joe was obviously looking for the latest updates, and in a perfect world (especially in this day and age of immediate information at your fingertips) everything would be solved within the first 48 hours. It would be great to identify this scumbag and string him (or her...have to be PC) up by their fingernails. Unfortunately, patience is no longer our strong suit as a society. We want everything immediately (used to be send a letter by mail, then fax it, then email it, then text it, now Tweet it...it's tiring). Others have said this before...but with a 24 hour news cycle, they fill their shows with so much crap... repetitive views and guesses, Joe wants answers!! I do too...but I'm willing to wait and see what the FBI and police find.

No, joe was just being an idiot, as always.

Edited April 17, 2013 by KD in CT

[OCinBuffalo]

When the bombing first happened, I listened to the radio coverage and the reports were all over the place. Two dead, 12 dead, another bomb at the library, backpacks being disarmed, etc.

 

Then the big news - FBI and law enforcement at the hospital with guns drawn at the bedside of a Saudi national on a student visa. How the media learned of this event at the hospital probably centers on hospital staff calling into some media outlet. Nonetheless, we waited for the FBI and local police to declare this student a suspect.

 

At the press conference, the police commissioner was riddled with questions about this student, an imminent arrest, the media dug deep into his history, roommates, education, etc.

 

Now I understand "Freedom of the Press" and the constitutional protections afforded members of the media (so as to avoid a government run press), but isn't there a time where the FBI and local law enforcement can tell the media members to "F#@k off, we're not telling you a thing!!" I say this because what if...and this may sound crazy...the FBI and police decided that the Saudi student is an actual suspect but in order to surveil him, watch him and monitor his calls, the FBI had to say he is no longer a suspect. If they have a suspect in mind, isn't it better to watch that person and hopefully connect that suspect to a larger organization (if there is one).

 

ChefJim, NoSaint and others were addressing this yesterday on "OTW" and it was the exactly what I was thinking when the FBI said the student was no longer a suspect...maybe, just maybe, they are giving a suspect a false sense of security to see where the suspect goes, who they call and meet with so they can arrest a larger group.

 

I just assume let the police and FBI handle their investigation; the media should report the facts (accurately) and stop with the incessant speculation and conjecture. We have the best investigators in the world. Let them do their jobs...they have a plan.

It's an interesting question, and, it's not like every police outfit on the planet doesn't use this tactic regularly. But, I would think that at first, the media scrutiny, and then the media absence, would all serve to improve the false sense of security you are talking about.

 

If anything, wouldn't the added media attention, and then the "boy aren't those authorities dumb?", and then nothing, stimulate a psychopath?

 

I suppose if suckering a guy was the play, I'd want the media to turn him into a star. Hell, I might even get lucky, and have him be unable to resist incriminating himself on live TV, just to prove how smart he is, and how dumb I am.

[GG]

You're watching too much Homeland.

[BringBackFergy]

If he is a suspect they would certainly be taking their time to ensure they don't violate his rights which could jeopardize a criminal case against him.

 

 

 

No, joe was just being an idiot, as always.

 

That's the problem with the media nowadays. With all the panel guests, ex officers, criminal defense attorneys, ex prosecutors giving their "expert" opinions it is difficult to maintain any sense of fair play. The cable news media are a bunch of whores. They are no longer reporting for the sake of informing the nation of facts; they are lecturing and guessing for the purpose of saying "I said it first". Even Fox (Greta, Hannity, O'Reilly) piss me off. I wish one time an FBI agent would say "I am not going to give any information to you because you are an irresponsible prick...next question"

 

Wasn't there a song awhile back about "Dirty Laundry" and how the "newscaster talked about the train crash with a gleam in her eye" or something like that.

[meazza]

That's the problem with the media nowadays. With all the panel guests, ex officers, criminal defense attorneys, ex prosecutors giving their "expert" opinions it is difficult to maintain any sense of fair play. The cable news media are a bunch of whores. They are no longer reporting for the sake of informing the nation of facts; they are lecturing and guessing for the purpose of saying "I said it first". Even Fox (Greta, Hannity, O'Reilly) piss me off. I wish one time an FBI agent would say "I am not going to give any information to you because you are an irresponsible prick...next question"

 

Wasn't there a song awhile back about "Dirty Laundry" and how the "newscaster talked about the train crash with a gleam in her eye" or something like that.

 

They are tools so it's normal to be pissed off by their garbage.

[BringBackFergy]

You're watching too much Homeland.

I actually do watch The First 48 because it is the most realistic.

 

Haven't watched Homeland but I am willing to try.

[OCinBuffalo]

I wish one time an FBI agent would say "I am not going to give any information to you because you are an irresponsible prick...next question"

That's funny, because on Greta's show an ex-FBI agent said something to the effect of "I just retired 2 months ago, and I'm not about to call up my co-workers and ask that question."

 

So, I suppose there's hope?

 

Then, I saw another guy say, when asked how he knew something, "I will tell you off air".

 

I agree with your point, but, I remebered both of these things preciesly because there were so counter to what both you, it appears, and I expect.

[B-Man]

With the Boston Marathon bombing, so many of the supposedly confirmed facts turned out not to be true:

Phones weren’t shut down,

 

other explosives were not found,

 

there is no suspect in custody.

 

Beyond “there was explosion” most MSM info wrong

 

Wrong on initial reports on shootings, they just don't learn.

 

 

.

[BringBackFergy]

That's funny, because on Greta's show an ex-FBI agent said something to the effect of "I just retired 2 months ago, and I'm not about to call up my co-workers and ask that question."

 

So, I suppose there's hope?

 

Then, I saw another guy say, when asked how he knew something, "I will tell you off air".

 

I agree with your point, but, I remebered both of these things preciesly because there were so counter to what both you, it appears, and I expect.

I love it. Those are great responses.

[shrader]

With the Boston Marathon bombing, so many of the supposedly confirmed facts turned out not to be true:

Phones weren’t shut down,

 

other explosives were not found,

 

there is no suspect in custody.

 

Beyond “there was explosion” most MSM info wrong

 

Wrong on initial reports on shootings, they just don't learn.

 

 

.

 

I haven't been crazy about the local coverage here in Boston, but I will give them credit for one thing. The station I was watching did not actually report any of the things you listed. The only thing they did mention was that there were other suspect packages. It's easy to see how that one turned to the "other bombs found" report though. They were constantly referred to as suspicious packages, and all it takes is one idiot to change one word in that description. I probably just turned on the right station though. I'm sure most of the others ran with all the bad "confirmed facts".

[DC Tom]

With the Boston Marathon bombing, so many of the supposedly confirmed facts turned out not to be true:

Phones weren’t shut down,

 

other explosives were not found,

 

there is no suspect in custody.

 

Beyond “there was explosion” most MSM info wrong

 

Wrong on initial reports on shootings, they just don't learn.

 

 

.

 

I remember on 9/11, when rumors of a helo crash in the Potomac were started. I actually watched that rumor start - I was standing next to the idiot who started it. It was fascinating.

 

First reports are ALWAYS wrong. Always. Unless it's a FoxSnooze headline...then they're just lies.

[We Come In Peace]

First reports are ALWAYS wrong. Always. Unless it's a FoxSnooze headline...then they're just lies.

I believe the proper term isn't lies, it's "alternative facts".

[B-Man]

Ed Driscoll: Breaking And Unbreaking The News.

 

 

"I don't want to hear any more about gatekeepers and "mediating intelligences" and "layers of editorial caution".

 

 

.

[Just Jack]

The NY Daily News altered a photo.....

 

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2013/04/8529102/daily-news-doctored-front-page-photo-boston-bombing

[BringBackFergy]

 

 

Unconfirmed Sources, FBI Sources, Anonymous Sources, a Source, etc. I wonder how many times the word "source" has been used in the last 48 hours in print/TV/radio media?? I know I read a CNN article posted yesterday on OTW and the author quoted at least 5 unnamed sources....in the end, the story was nothing but fluff to take up space with the goal of hoping to break a story. I'm sick of these crackpots and their "unnamed, anonymous, confidential,....sources". This is no longer news...it's entertainment and really disgraceful. They should no longer consider themselves "professionals".

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 18, 2013 by BringBackFergy

[Juror#8]

When the bombing first happened, I listened to the radio coverage and the reports were all over the place. Two dead, 12 dead, another bomb at the library, backpacks being disarmed, etc.

 

Then the big news - FBI and law enforcement at the hospital with guns drawn at the bedside of a Saudi national on a student visa. How the media learned of this event at the hospital probably centers on hospital staff calling into some media outlet. Nonetheless, we waited for the FBI and local police to declare this student a suspect.

 

At the press conference, the police commissioner was riddled with questions about this student, an imminent arrest, the media dug deep into his history, roommates, education, etc.

 

Now I understand "Freedom of the Press" and the constitutional protections afforded members of the media (so as to avoid a government run press), but isn't there a time where the FBI and local law enforcement can tell the media members to "F#@k off, we're not telling you a thing!!" I say this because what if...and this may sound crazy...the FBI and police decided that the Saudi student is an actual suspect but in order to surveil him, watch him and monitor his calls, the FBI had to say he is no longer a suspect. If they have a suspect in mind, isn't it better to watch that person and hopefully connect that suspect to a larger organization (if there is one).

 

ChefJim, NoSaint and others were addressing this yesterday on "OTW" and it was the exactly what I was thinking when the FBI said the student was no longer a suspect...maybe, just maybe, they are giving a suspect a false sense of security to see where the suspect goes, who they call and meet with so they can arrest a larger group.

 

I just assume let the police and FBI handle their investigation; the media should report the facts (accurately) and stop with the incessant speculation and conjecture. We have the best investigators in the world. Let them do their jobs...they have a plan.

 

I think that there have been tons of instances when the media hasn't ran a story because law enforcement or the government indicated that that publication would be deleterious to their efforts at resolution.

 

If memory serves, the press had a lot of info about the Unabomber that they kept quiet per law enforcement admonition. Same with the Malvo people (DC Snipers). And I think I heard Woodward mention, when he was working the Sunday circuit, that Katherine Graham was known for sitting on a story if necessary.

 

But then there are occassions like Nixon's Pentagon papers drama when the press went against government admonitions.

 

I'm not sure that law enforcement can just say "FU!" But they can make a compelling case for restraint in releasing information that could adversely affect their ability to do their jobs effectively.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Juror#8