Boston Marathon Bombing

[Ginger Tea]

If CNN initially stated that they were not releasing information on the 3rd victim, perhaps going as far as gender and nationality, due to them being requested by the family NOT TO, then we would not be having this back and forth.

Even saying they had yet to establish the identiy of the third runner is quick to type, it means they can't say anything about him or her as no one knows who they are.

[smileyeagle1021]

not sure if you intended to paraphrase Heath Ledger's lines from the dark night or not.

I didn't mean to, but I'm not surprised that I did. I have friends who are socialogy majors, and The Dark Knight is mandatory viewing for them because Heath Ledger was so spot on in his assessment of human behavior.

[Hyena Dandy]

Technically, no matter the origin of the fucktard that perpetrated the act, it was an act of terror. It was specifically designed to be flashy and dangerous and make people afraid. If that's not a terrorist act, I'm not sure what is.

That's not the definition that I've heard of Terrorism. For something to be Terrorism, there does need to be an ulterior motive beyond the fear. What that motive is is irrelevant, but it has to be more than 'make people scared.' It has to be 'make people scared, and THEREFORE-'

There has to be a therefore. Just 'make people scared' doesn't cut it.

That said... I don't think it's that BAD calling it terrorism. That's certainly what it looks like, anyway. But it could very well not be terrorism, even if they wanted people to be scared.

[smileyeagle1021]

According to Fox News (yeah, I know it should be called Faux News with how reliable they are, but damnit if that wasn't the bullshit in the break room today), to be terrorism it has to be politically motivated... take that for what it's worth.

[fireheart17]

According to Fox News (yeah, I know it should be called Faux News with how reliable they are, but damnit if that wasn't the bullshit in the break room today), to be terrorism it has to be politically motivated... take that for what it's worth.

Not a lot really.

I did two classes on terrorism at uni for my undergrad. Both of them divided terrorism down into three categories:

Political (ie killing for a political party, group etc.)
Religious (ie killing in the name of your deity)
Social/Sadistic (killing for the sake of it)

ETA: Some wanker down here has claimed that students are responsible for the bombings. -.-

[fireheart17]

Ricin was sent through the Washington PD&C and was sent to Sen Wicken (R) Miss.

Oops. The headline initially screamed out "PResident" and "ricin" hence my initial quote.

1. Better theories here, main ones I've heard that since it was "patriot's day", and tax day, some nutjob political group was trying to stage another "boston tea party", because "gun control" or something.

2. Also the standard blaming the "godlessness" of america.

3. At least most conspiracies have the obvious common "nutjob" element. I'm betting on nutjob, seems to be a solid theory.

1. Cause clearly nothing says "Let's bring our people together on stupid people wielding deadly weapons" (ie the bare bones of the gun control argument) like bombing a major event. Although since you mentioned tax day, maybe someone did it to avoid paying their taxes?

2. That does not surprise me. Especially given the tendency for some states to allow gay rights.

3. That is true. Or at least they manage to cherrypick out the truths and sugarcoat them in lies. Which makes it harder to pick out the truth from the myths.

[Aethian]

Oops. The headline initially screamed out "PResident" and "ricin" hence my initial quote.

Yea I know I've seen some of the same stories. It's like those ones that put SEX in big letters and then under it, "now that I've got your attention"

[kaycivine]

well it turns out a letter with ricin WAS addressed to Obama as well.

And an arrest was just made in regards to the incident in Boston

[Nekojin]

And an arrest was just made in regards to the incident in Boston

Sorry, no arrest just yet, just some confusing reports and overeager news people.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/bos...sts/index.html

[kaycivine]

Sorry, no arrest just yet, just some confusing reports and overeager news people.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/bos...sts/index.html

That's what I get when I'm connected to my local news on facebook D: My bad

[Panacea]

All I said was CNN is not helping the argument. Period. I did not even indicate I was on a side in said argument.

No, but you complained that others were making you feel like you had burned the American flag when they didn't say anything negative about you or what you said.

I don't buy the argument that just because CNN didn't jump on the bandwagon to report scanty information on the Chinese victim after the family asked for privacy, that CNN is "not helping" the argument that the American media is egocentric. Quite frankly, I've found their reporting to be sensible and responsible; attempting to clarify the difference between fact and rumor.

You even just admitted it yourself with the language "You seem to be". Not you did or you are.

I was trying to be polite. But hey, you want me to be direct? I can be direct.

CNN's not really helping the argument now. We practically have the life story / family photo albums of the 2 American victims. But the third turned out to be Chinese going to university in the US annnd that's it. She got 5 seconds of air time. Not even a name.

This is what you said. Yes, I see where you said, "CNN's not really helping the argument now." Don't care. The rest of the post is a bitch that the Chinese student barely got a mention.

Well la de dah. At the time CNN posted that, not much was known for them even to report. You see, CNN usually does a pretty good job at something called verification of facts before they print something. While they do occasionally get things wrong (as any media outlet does) they don't usually rush to print something because everyone else is.

Your whole argument makes no sense. Just because on this one issue, they don't rush to print something, doesn't help or hurt the notion that the American media is ethnocentric. It's like saying we have global warming because Bessie the cow farted last night.

[Andara Bledin]

That's what I get when I'm connected to my local news on facebook D: My bad

No, not your fault. Apparently someone said something that the media took to mean an arrest had been made - CNN had the same report. One quote now says that someone semi-offical said they "got him," but that apparently just means that they've pinned down the perpetrator in video footage.

[Gravekeeper]

Your whole argument makes no sense. Just because on this one issue, they don't rush to print something, doesn't help or hurt the notion that the American media is ethnocentric.

But they did rush to print something and they did sensationalize. Sure, The whole argument makes no sense if you keep ignoring half of what I'm saying. Then ignore the repeated clarifications to cling to the one thing you perceived in my wording that you want to be upset with. Never mind being retroactive about it.

Do I need to make a time line or a flow chart?

Argument in thread: US media is sensationalized and US centric.
CNN's initial story plays into that narrative.
I point out that CNN is not helping the debate going on by playing into that narrative.

It doesn't matter if you bring up news stories after that initial report or if CNN has corrected themselves now. You're arguing at me retroactively. You're pretty much blaming me now for CNN jumping the gun on their report before having the information in question. Yet at the same time saying CNN didn't jump the gun?

I'm not a CNN news anchor and you're not a time traveler.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm just curious why US media being US-centric is even on the table. They should be.

I, personally, think you're reading more into CNN's coverage (or perceived) lack than actually exists. They threw every piece of information they had at the screen. It's ridiculous to find fault for them not spending time talking about what they don't know when what they do could fill a day's coverage on its own.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm just curious why US media being US-centric is even on the table. They should be.

You know what people meant. Don't give us that.

I, personally, think you're reading more into CNN's coverage (or perceived) lack than actually exists. They threw every piece of information they had at the screen. It's ridiculous to find fault for them not spending time talking about what they don't know when what they do could fill a day's coverage on its own.

And you're reading more into what I said than actually exists.