The New York Post's performance yesterday

I guess it's easy to be dismissive because "it's the Post." But exaggeration is one thing. Flat-out misreporting is another, particular when you're the lone wolf doing so. Yesterday, the Post reported that there were 12 dead in the Boston Marathon bombing. It stuck with that all day, along with its assertion that a "Saudi national" was being held as a suspect:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/ny-post-boston-bombings_n_3092814.html

I'll admit: I was sucked in. I know the Post exaggerates and hyperbolizes, but until yesterday, I thought it was at least a credible news source. I guess yesterday raises a few questions:

1) Was the Post a credible news source to begin with?
2) If so, has it now sacrificed that stature?
3) Even for a tabloid, even for the Post, considering the circumstances, was that an all-time pathetic performance?

 

No one will remember. They'll do it again.

 

I've been fascinated by how there really are no details other than the number of dead and injured. It's almost as if authorities made a concerted effort not to tell the media anything regarding the investigation, and given the media's performance in the past decade or so, I can't say I blame them.

 

Newseum does not have the New York Post's cover this afternoon.

The Post stuck with 12 dead, 50 injured long after releases had come out that it was two, then three dead and more than 100 injured.

 

I can. It's public information, by law.

 

This.

Not defending The Post on any level, but it blows my mind how many news organizations took the numbers that the Post was reporting and ran with it as well.

If this was in NY, I think you might be able to justify it, but why would anyone think that the NY Post would be ahead of the rest on something that was happening in Boston. That struck me as being incredibly strange as it was happening...

 

Which?

 

Didn't the Saudi national story turn out to be true?

 

The police say he was never detained. The Post reported he was taken into custody.

 

ESPN was running CNN's coverage for a stretch and they had the "as many as 12 could be dead" news for awhile and then it was taken off the crawl without any explanation...

 

Interesting. The news sources I followed, none broadcast, ignored the Post's reports entirely.

 

I can only think of two ways that the Post comes up with 12 dead:

1. A reporter has a federal/state of Mass source who fed this number

2. The Post suspected it'd be far worse, and 12 was on the low side.