The New York Post's performance yesterday

I highly doubt it. But sources are wrong all the time. They are sticking to this one even as the prudent decision would be to wait. Again, death tolls are the types of things better left underestimated.

 

The source hedged anyway.

It could have been as high as 12. It turned out not to be.

Now, by no means am I saying they did some great job, but every news org reported additional bombs. They reported a third bomb had gone off. They reported that police had found additional unreported bombs. All b.s.

There were reports that the bombs were in trash cans. That appears to be false.

Focus on the NYPost all you want, but as usual, in a breaking news story, they all sucked. They all got news wrong as they rushed to be first.

And, law enforcement is just as bad.

 

I feel bad saying this, because a lot of the people standing up for the Post here and drawing partisan lines are posters I really like (YF, YGBFKM, Boom, etc.).

But it smacks of intellectual dishonesty to sit here and say that the Post's misreporting was no different than that by other news organizations on Monday. There are two questions on everyone's mind after something like that: How many are dead? Who did it?

The Post botched both. No one else had 12 dead. Nobody. And they didn't hedge. Maybe they hedged in the body copy, but the headline reported it as fact. For hours and hours and hours. I don't care if you attended Sarah Palin campaign rallies and own a lock of St. Ronald Reagan's hair, you have to admit that that's an enormous mistake, on par with reporting Gabby Giffords' death.

 

Rest easy Dick. I have no problem getting called out. Sure The Post got it wrong but again so did a lot of news organizations in their rush to get news out.

For example here is a passage taken from a highly acclaimed column by Kevin Cullen that was on the front page of yesterday's Globe:

"Then there was the story about the young Saudi guy who was being questioned by the FBI. Now, the FBI wouldn’t tell me if my pants were on fire, but my old pal John Miller from CBS News reported that the kid did a runner after the explosion and that somebody tackled him and held him for the police. Miller used to be an associate director at the FBI, and let’s just say his sources there are impeccable. Miller says the Saudi guy was cooperative and denied he had anything to do with the bombing. He says he took off because, like everybody else in the Back Bay, he was terrified. A law enforcement source later told me that Miller’s story is right on the money."


Even The Globe who did some incredible reporting got the story wrong.

 

I don't understand what is wrong there. It's my understanding that a Saudi did run from the scene, was tackled and held by authorities.

The assumption was that he was involved and was getting away. But apparently he was just running away from the bombs.

 

Right. And, folks are disgusted at the bystander who tackled him. He's obviously a racist.

And the Police have confirmed he is not a suspect.

But, they raided his house.

So, they can say he was "in custody" and wasn't a "suspect" but they raided his house.

This wasn't just a case of the Post getting some bad info from a source. They raided his house.

 

The Post's reporting was bad.

So was everyone else's. The rest of the media does not deserve a pass just because the Post fucked up more.

 

What's the difference between "raiding" his house and "searching" his house?

 

Or "raided the house of a Saudi national on study visa" vs "searched the apartment of a
20 year old college student"

 

Who's giving them a pass?

The Post made the queen mother of reporting mistakes after a tragedy - it exaggerated the body count. And it exagerrated it four-fold. What's more, since it was a fluid situation at the time, it gave the impression that the body count was climbing. You know how those situations go. First two dead. Then eight. Then, next thing you know, dozens.

It's unacceptable. It's enormously different than reporting that there were other bombs around town, or whatever else was being looked into at the time, and arguing otherwise is just being protective of the Post because of which way the Post leans. NPR fucked up when it reported that Gabrielle Giffords was dead. CNN fucked up when it reported that Obamacare had been struck down. There are mistakes and there are Mistakes. The Post made a Mistake, capital "M." It is unbecoming to run interference for them just because they endorse Republican candidates.

 

Semantics. How does the the choice of words here change your opinion?

His roommate states that the house was being searched when he arrived home. That doesn't sound like they knocked and asked for permission to come in.

Either way, law enforcement treated this guy like a suspect until they could eliminate him.

 

Also unbecoming to assume that posters are "running cover" because of endorsements.
The Post fucked up details, so did a lot of news organizations and also the Boston Police
Commissioner.