The New York Post's performance yesterday

Wow

http://deadspin.com/the-boston-bombing-witch-hunt-bags-another-innocent-kid-476001019

 

What's my opinion of The Post's performance? What the fuck do you think is my opinion of it? I think it was fucking horseshit. Put that in I don't fucking ... Opinion of The Post's performance? Jesus Christ The Post reported 12 fucking people were dead. What the fuck do you mean what is my opinion of their performance? How can you ask me a question like that? What is my opinion of their p - of their p-p-performance? Jesus Christ they reported 12 fucking people were dead.. Jesus Christ. I'm fucking pissed off about this fucking story, and you ask me my opinion of The Post's performance. Jesus Christ. I mean that's a tough question to ask me, isn't it? What is my opinion of their performance?

 

... and then he ate spaghetti.

 

And they had nothing close to the resources the media has now.

 

Getting things wrong is one thing. Finger-pointing with no self-awareness is another.

Recall the Dec. 14 grade-school massacre in Newtown, Conn. I don’t mind so much that The Associated Press got so many facts wrong in its initial reporting. I understand why the AP ran with unconfirmed, anonymously sourced information.

But I can’t stomach the AP’s “analysis” of media coverage of what Adam Lanza wrought, published about 72 hours after the shooting. The AP blamed everything but its own poor standards, and its pathetic desperation, in citing mistakes in reporting about Sandy Hook.

“… television, along with other media, fell prey to reporting ‘facts’ that were often in conflict or wrong.”

The AP story then listed a series of factual errors the media made: the number of victims, the identity of the shooter, the shooter’s mother’s connection to Sandy Hook, the weapon used.

But it wasn't until the 17th paragraph – the 17th!!! – that the AP says, well, we fucked up, too.

“The Associated Press was also caught in the swirl of imprecise information. When key elements of the story changed, the AP issued two advisories — one to correct that Adam Lanza, not his brother, was the gunman, and another that called into question the original report that Lanza’s mother taught at the school.”

Key elements of the story never changed. Media members – including the AP – finally started to get the facts straight.

One of the writethrus that correctly identified the shooter as Adam Lanza (instead of Ryan), had this note:

“Note that the latest version of BC-US–Connecticut School Shooting makes an important change. Authorities now say the suspect is 20-year-old Adam Lanza. Earlier, they had identified the shooter as Lanza’s older brother, Ryan, who is only being questioned.”

Yeah, kind of an important change.

Most serial killers in the U.S. are white males in their 20s or 30s. Did the name of this killer mean anything – except to the handful of people who knew him? Was it so important to associate an essentially meaningless name with this monstrous crime? Couldn’t it have waited for official identification?

Yes, it could have. It should have.

Again, getting the facts wrong in the first place isn’t what is so galling in this case. The sense of urgency, to provide information — any information — must have been monumental.

It’s pointing the finger at other media outlets, particularly television, in the analysis, that is classless.

If you’re going to risk being wrong in the race to be first, you’d better be willing to accept the costs. Typical AP "We're above the fray" action.