Quote of the day
In comments from Mad Saint Jack:
One of the big takeaways I hope the average Joe get from the coverage of Ft. Hood is how the press got almost everything wrong.
Did the press get anything right when the story broke? Other than shots were fired.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:42 am
The public’s right to be speedily informed shall not be impeded by a need for accuracy.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am
The media also reported that the FBI immediately determined that the shooting at Ft. Hood was NOT an act of terrorism. However according to the definition of terrorism in section 802 of the PATRIOT Act, what the perp done was terrorism.
It would have certainly been declared an act of terror by officialdom had a Christian yelled “No king, but King Jesus” ( a mantra of the American Revolution) or “God Bless the Republic–death to the New World Order” and committed the same atrocity.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
They didnt “Get it wrong”, they tried to make it what they wanted it to be and what they wanted us to see. The problem was there was to many people and too much info swirling around for them to do the damage control they wanted and spoon feed poor information to the people.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I was following the accounts here at Uncle and on the web news… the press was wrong, and the military was wrong. Stories are still jumbled.
Whatever happened to the two suspects being held for questioning? Did they even exist?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Did the press get anything right when the story broke?
Do they ever?
The WTC had explosives it in on 9/11 according to some initial reports.
Arabs were involved in the WTC bombing according to some initial reports. And with that one again we had the “explosives inside the building” stick get beat, which was true-ish, but they weren’t part of the bombing.
The DC sniper was operating out of a white van. Ok, so that one can probably be blamed on the DC police, but still, it was reported.
In any fast breaking story that kind of crap is going to happen. The reporters weren’t there and even eyewitnesses are pretty crappy sources in such events especially when you start talking about guns and explosives.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
The first news annoucements when Robert Kennedy was shot in ’68 were that Kennedy had been shot but no details were available at that time and the media would give updates when they recieved more information. This was on all 3 of the major networks.
Now the lamestream media’s so anxious to sensationalize that they throw out any rumor, allegation, and hallucination as fast as they can spew it without checking or waiting to see if there’s any truth to it. It’s disgusting.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
The media report what they are told by sources. The sources were wrong and new information is now becoming available. A reporter is only as good as his or her source of information, which could be (a) wrong or (b) spinning and engaging in disinformation as in the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch cases. Commentators, however, offer their “analysis”, which is only opinion. Anyone who thinks eyewitness accounts are infallible should look up the Harvard “gorilla suit” studies.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
OK, I feel cool now.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
As far as the “two suspects being held” thing, it would not surprise me to find out that they were people who were carrying concealed (not necessarily a gun, could just be a knife) in violation of base policy and were initially suspected to be accomplices. In all that chaos anyone who had a weapon who wasn’t wearing a badge would definitely be rounded up until things could be sorted out by someone with more authority than the initial responders at the scene. Just a guess, but makes as much sense as anything else.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Well, the press pretty quickly narrowed down the location to a 339-square-mile area of Texas.