Boston Marathon Bombing

[akoff 0]

it is shame he didn't live long enough to get waterboarded.

[mrdannyg 274]

NBC News ‏@NBCNews 12m

JUST IN: Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev and man killed by FBI in Orlando responsible for 2011 triple homicide, sources say

 

 

NBC News ‏@NBCNews 10m

MORE: Tsarnaev and Ibragim Todashev murdered three people in drug rip-off in Waltham, Mass. to avoid being identified, sources say

 

Feel like I'm reading a bad book when I see stuff like that. How does a large news organization write "blah blah murdered 3 people....sources say." Hey guys, no need for expensive trials anymore. NBC's anonymous sources say they murdered a bunch of people, so you know, no reason not to write that information as if it was factual.

[timwakefield 68]

Feel like I'm reading a bad book when I see stuff like that. How does a large news organization write "blah blah murdered 3 people....sources say." Hey guys, no need for expensive trials anymore. NBC's anonymous sources say they murdered a bunch of people, so you know, no reason not to write that information as if it was factual.

 

Huh? "Sources say" is pretty similar to "allegedly." I don't understand the problem. They're not reporting that it definitely happened, they're reporting that a source says it happened, and since it's a goddam tweet, it seems likely that if you read or watch their full report they would identify their sources and go into greater detail.

 

Seriously, you're upset that their tweet (max: 160 characters) did not contain enough information.

[akoff 0]

Huh? "Sources say" is pretty similar to "allegedly." I don't understand the problem. They're not reporting that it definitely happened, they're reporting that a source says it happened, and since it's a goddam tweet, it seems likely that if you read or watch their full report they would identify their sources and go into greater detail.

 

Seriously, you're upset that their tweet (max: 160 characters) did not contain enough information.

 

Don't worry when BHO gets done with the media they won't do anything like this again.

[mrdannyg 274]

Huh? "Sources say" is pretty similar to "allegedly." I don't understand the problem. They're not reporting that it definitely happened, they're reporting that a source says it happened, and since it's a goddam tweet, it seems likely that if you read or watch their full report they would identify their sources and go into greater detail.

 

Seriously, you're upset that their tweet (max: 160 characters) did not contain enough information.

 

There is not a single thing accurate about that post. Suggesting "sources say" is even in the same category as "allegedly" demonstrates a zero understanding of what journalism actually is, or what a news organization 'should' do.

[timwakefield 68]

There is not a single thing accurate about that post. Suggesting "sources say" is even in the same category as "allegedly" demonstrates a zero understanding of what journalism actually is, or what a news organization 'should' do.

 

"There is not a single thing accurate about that post."

 

Hyperbole much? So I was inaccurate in saying that they were tweets? I was inaccurate in saying that tweets have a maximum of 160 characters? I was inaccurate in saying that their full reports go into greater detail? Etc.

 

Now then. "Sources say" is similar to "allegedly" in many ways, and in fact they can often be essentially interchangeable, or synonymous. I feel like you simply didn't think this through, like, at all.

 

Let's say a journalist writes: "John Doe allegedly killed Jane Doe on May 15, 2013." Here the journalist is stating that his/her sources have alleged that John Doe killed Jane Doe on that date.

 

Let's say a journalist writes: "John Doe killed Jane Doe on May 15, 2013, our sources say." Here the journalist is stating that his/her sources have alleged that John Doe killed Jane Doe on that date.

 

Let's say a journalist writes: "John Doe killed Jane Doe on May 15, 2013, according to police." Here the journalist has identified his/her source, which makes this version more informative than either of the previous two.

 

Do we see any similarities between the first two examples? Are you sure I'm the one with "zero understanding of what journalism actually is?"

 

Next time instead of just saying 'OMG you're so wrong and you don't understand journalism,' perhaps try to explain to me how and why I'm wrong. This has at least two potential benefits. First, if I am in fact wrong you can help me and other readers to better understand the world. Second, it gives you the opportunity to examine why, how, and what you think I'm wrong about, and in a case like this one today, may allow you to rethink your post and prevent you from embarrassing yourself as you have just done.

[AmScray 355]

I have a question.

 

If the worst poster and second worst poster are battling it out and the second worst poster ultimately wins, does he 'improve' to third worst poster, does he ascend to the role of worst poster having defeated the existing champ, or does he remain as the second worst poster?

[mrdannyg 274]

"There is not a single thing accurate about that post."

 

Hyperbole much? So I was inaccurate in saying that they were tweets? I was inaccurate in saying that tweets have a maximum of 160 characters? I was inaccurate in saying that their full reports go into greater detail? Etc.

 

Now then. "Sources say" is similar to "allegedly" in many ways, and in fact they can often be essentially interchangeable, or synonymous. I feel like you simply didn't think this through, like, at all.

 

Let's say a journalist writes: "John Doe allegedly killed Jane Doe on May 15, 2013." Here the journalist is stating that his/her sources have alleged that John Doe killed Jane Doe on that date.

 

Let's say a journalist writes: "John Doe killed Jane Doe on May 15, 2013, our sources say." Here the journalist is stating that his/her sources have alleged that John Doe killed Jane Doe on that date.

 

Let's say a journalist writes: "John Doe killed Jane Doe on May 15, 2013, according to police." Here the journalist has identified his/her source, which makes this version more informative than either of the previous two.

 

Do we see any similarities between the first two examples? Are you sure I'm the one with "zero understanding of what journalism actually is?"

 

Next time instead of just saying 'OMG you're so wrong and you don't understand journalism,' perhaps try to explain to me how and why I'm wrong. This has at least two potential benefits. First, if I am in fact wrong you can help me and other readers to better understand the world. Second, it gives you the opportunity to examine why, how, and what you think I'm wrong about, and in a case like this one today, may allow you to rethink your post and prevent you from embarrassing yourself as you have just done.

 

There is a 140-character maximum on twitter.

 

I have a question.

 

If the worst poster and second worst poster are battling it out and the second worst poster ultimately wins, does he 'improve' to third worst poster, does he ascend to the role of worst poster having defeated the existing champ, or does he remain as the second worst poster?

 

Hi. Eat shit.

[NickCave 194]

I have a question.

 

If the worst poster and second worst poster are battling it out and the second worst poster ultimately wins, does he 'improve' to third worst poster, does he ascend to the role of worst poster having defeated the existing champ, or does he remain as the second worst poster?

 

It's like an allegory for Democratic primaries from the early part of the millennium.

 

And while any victory in the battle royale above would be a Pyrrhic victory, the loser suffers even more. I'm pretty sure, the way it works is, that each poster remains in his position relative to the other, but they both move even farther from the third worst position.