Hellobee Boards

I think some sources have done a much better jobs than others. The NYT has been pretty solid... CNN and NY Post not so much.

I agree with you. On top of all that, it infuriates me that they are not doing their due diligence. Do people want to know what's going on? Yes. Would they like to know as soon as possible? Yes. Does that mean you should grab all and any leads you have? No.

What happened to good reporting? They are doing a disservice to their company and slandering their own reputation by putting a bunch of BS stories out there. People can be patient if what they get in the end is THE TRUTH.

+1 on the rant @Lindsay05:

They are showing his Aunt on the news up here (she lives in/near Toronto) and she is just ranting. What she is saying is a little nutty to me, and they're just letting it go on, and on! She doesn't actually know anything (just blabbering opinion I think), totally does not add to any of the story, and it's sort of embarrassing.

I really hope this all ends soon (however it's going to end) and the focus can be brought back to the families mourning the loss of their loved ones (both in Boston, and Texas) rather than useless spinoff stories, theories, etc.

@Beebug: The instant gratification kills me. It's amazing what people will blindly believe and spread around. These people just don't help the situation at all.... (IE: sharing false info on facebook).

Yeah I agree. One one hand, I get it-- they can't exactly switch over to regularly scheduled Maury Povich or whatever, because that would just seem really wrong, but at the same time, they *shouldn't* report rumors or anything that isn't checked OR report anything that could compromise police safety or the investigation, like specific locations, and yet they have to fill all this time. So I appreciate that they are all in a tough spot, but a lot of them just aren't handling it well.

I pretty surprised how long it's been going on. I thought they would have gotten him hours ago... one of the two strangest days of my life.

I agree. I very much dislike mainstream media.

Just another reason why the internet must always ALWAYS remain free.

@pui: This is true, but as a sidenote even more than mainstream media I can't stand people who view something on youtube or a fb meme going around and take it as absolute truth!

As a reporter at a major metropolitan daily newspaper (not in Boston), I'm a member of the mainstream media and I understand the frustrations over sensational coverage and propagating bad information. But ranting about THE MEDIA like it's a single hive mind is not particularly helpful. I would say that in Boston coverage, outlets such as CNN and the New York Post have done a sub-par job, while others - in particular the Boston Globe, laboring under incredible duress - have done good, careful work.

We're all intelligent, critical thinkers here (that's why I like these boards compared with other Internet forums). So I'd really urge you to distinguish between sources of information; reward the ones you trust with your readership/subscription dollars and turn off/don't click on the irresponsible ones.

There's going to be a lot of handwringing and navel-gazing in the media after the dust settles on this, and that's a conversation that needs to happen. But probably not right now.

Also, re: non-MSM, online sources of information, there have been issues too (Reddit's false IDs of suspects, people on Twitter repeating police scanner traffic, etc.).

@MsInformation: +1,000,000

@Lindsay05: Yeah a lot of people have the idea that "Well if it's on CNN/Fox/*insert other big news corp* it MUST be facts!!

I liked this tweet today from Steve Inskeep, the host of NPR's Morning Edition:

We are collecting dots. It's a day to be careful about connecting them.

@Mrs. Yoyo: I agree, it's throwing shit against a wall and hoping something sticks. The media is criticized if they don't, and if something sticks they're winning the viewers/making money. Meanwhile the viewers are eating everything up and demanding more and not looking critically about whether or not something has been verified and then criticizing them if it's false.

I think it's the media's responsibility to only report/publish verified facts, but I can understand why they don't...they're responding to our demands for instant news gratification. I think it's become a dangerous cycle, but one for which both parties are responsible.

I also think it's super important that we are media consumers look very critically at every piece of information that comes through. Has it been verified? Was it a rumor or something pulled off of an internet forum?

(http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/the_internets_shameful_false_id/ , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/reddit-sunil-tripathi-apologize_n_3117051.html )

Unfortunately, the world we live in is very fast-paced and we're accustomed to being able to find out anything at any time, day or not, and we expect our news to cater to that, and a lot of people won't look at it critically, will accept and spread any piece of shit that's thrown at them (particularly if it's from a source like CNN) and then eviscerate them if it turns out to be false. Bad cycle.

My two cents.

@MrsSCB: Thank you for posting. I always wonder about people in the media industry. Very insightful to know the world of broadcast news. I think for newspapers to be able to be printed in time, don't they have to have articles edited and ready by like 4am or earlier. Crazy, you guys probably don't sleep... especially when tragedies strike like the Boston Marathon bombing.

@MrsSCB: Have noticed a lot fewer ads during actual breaking news. There are more now this afternoon but this morning it was straight coverage which I appreciated.

@Mrs. Yoyo: Wow, 1am?