Jordan
In the past week or so since this has happened, I've read reports saying he was armed with a gun, then it was a knife, then it was a sword, and now I'm reading reports that he was unarmed. The sources in all of these articles have been "anonymous law enforcement officials". My question is, is it against the law to cite them as a source if they really had not spoken with the media? I can't understand why law enforcement would lie and say he was armed only to eventually say he wasn't armed. Which leads me to believe either the media or law enforcement is lying. What do you think about this?
Answer
This whole thing is sketchy. I think it's safe to assume he wasn't armed with a gun, because the agent was stabbed and had to get stitches, it wasn't a bullet wound. Also because of this, it's safe to assume he was armed in some way. It's not easy to wound someone bad enough that they have to have stitches, especially when you get shot a few seconds later, with your bare hands. I'll be honest, I haven't really been paying a lot of attention to this part of the Boston case.
It's not illegal for news media outlets to lie, unfortunately. The main ones (Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post etc) will make up any silly story to get views, they don't care how credible their information is.
It seems like the law enforcement is reluctant to give out straight information. They're probably still investigating, which is why we aren't getting anything official. The agents who fired their guns had to file out paperwork and were put on a paid leave. It's standard procedure for every single police officer who has to fire their guns. It's likely that we won't get an official answer until the police department investigates the agents to make sure that the shooting wasn't unjust.
This whole thing is sketchy. I think it's safe to assume he wasn't armed with a gun, because the agent was stabbed and had to get stitches, it wasn't a bullet wound. Also because of this, it's safe to assume he was armed in some way. It's not easy to wound someone bad enough that they have to have stitches, especially when you get shot a few seconds later, with your bare hands. I'll be honest, I haven't really been paying a lot of attention to this part of the Boston case.
It's not illegal for news media outlets to lie, unfortunately. The main ones (Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post etc) will make up any silly story to get views, they don't care how credible their information is.
It seems like the law enforcement is reluctant to give out straight information. They're probably still investigating, which is why we aren't getting anything official. The agents who fired their guns had to file out paperwork and were put on a paid leave. It's standard procedure for every single police officer who has to fire their guns. It's likely that we won't get an official answer until the police department investigates the agents to make sure that the shooting wasn't unjust.
Why is the Boston Marathon Bombing getting so much news coverage and so memorable?
Adamismyna
I'm not at all trying to downplay the tragedy in Boston. What I am wondering though with regards to news coverage and details about it, "Why is it such a national tragedy" rather then a 1 or 2 day news story. In 1998 there was a school shooting in Oregon where 4 people were killed (2 in the suspect's home and 2 at the school) and it was tragic but a 2 day only news story. The Boston Marathon Tragedy is being covered more like the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Sandy Hook Shooting where many more lives were lost.
So what is it about the Boston Marathon Bombing that has made it such a news story and I presume an historic event that will be a "where were you when you heard about the Boston Marathon Bombing". When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 there was another major story two days later that got just as much coverage so even that was a two day news story even though there were updates. the Vanderbilt News Archive showed the Waco Shootout two days after the WTC Bombing got almost just as much coverage. Whereas the West Texas Explosion a day or two after the Boston Bombing got very little coverage due to the Boston Bombing.
Answer
The Boston Marathon is an international sporting event with international participation.
And international media coverage.
The US media knows the eyes of the world are on them to provide information.
That's why it's getting so much coverage.
What's your excuse for not knowing that?
The Boston Marathon is an international sporting event with international participation.
And international media coverage.
The US media knows the eyes of the world are on them to provide information.
That's why it's getting so much coverage.
What's your excuse for not knowing that?
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment