Ok, I don't like being political, but I'm getting a bit frustrated by posts that I see on Facebook after the bombing at the Boston Marathon. Specifically, an article I read this morning that someone shared on Facebook, asking about "unanswered questions the mainstream media is afraid to ask". Other than getting grumpy eyebrows at the sensationalist writing (Yes, I know that it is meant to be sensationalist to get people to read it), it made me think again...how much DO we have a right to know through the news media.
Now, if someone really wants to know what's going on, or what happened, I don't have a problem with them being able to find out. However, sensationalist news media is not necessarily the way to do that. Some things should not be broadcast to the world at large.
Understand that I am not saying any of the things being questioned are or are not true. The actual truth of the assertions isn't my point. My point is that these are not things the mainstream media necessarily should be broadcasting.
One set of the "unanswered questions" revolves around whether or not there was a bomb squad drill going on the day of the marathon. Some people say they were being told there was a drill, others say the authorities deny there was a drill. People say they saw bomb dogs sniffing around at the marathon and extra security inspecting the marathon area. So the question being hinted at seems to be..."did they know there were bombs, or had there been a bomb threat that they didn't tell anyone about?"
The answer, in my mind, is they probably did have a bomb thread, or at least "chatter" about a bombing at the marathon. Should they have broadcast it? In my mind, NO. They did what they could/should have done - Investigate quietly with heightened vigilance. First, what good would it have done to broadcast the fact that there was a bomb threat? It would have caused panic, making it harder for people to investigate. Also, if a bomb threat or chatter about a possibility of a bomb,which I'm sure happens a lot more than we actually hear about, is enough to disrupt something the size of the Marathon, then terrorists don't have to use actual bombs, they just have to hint at the possibility to achieve their goals. The terrorists would win.
Another set of questions involves a Saudi national who was, in theory, originally identified as a "person of interest". The article I read was questioning why Michelle Obama visited this person in the hospital, and why there were unscheduled meetings between the President and someone from the Saudi government. Well...watching the news on the day of the bombing, I know there was someone who was being reported early as a "person of interest", but the authorities were saying, right away, that No, he was NOT someone they were looking at. There's a decent chance that's the person they were talking about.
More of the questions about this person involve the fact that he was photographed with two other Saudi nationals earlier that day, and the fact that he is now scheduled to leave the country "with the full blessing of the US Government." Lets look at this logically. What is so strange or wrong with him being photographed with other people from his home country? Couldn't they just be his friends? The Boston Marathon brings people from around the world. If it was three people from France, or from South Africa who were being photographed together, would there be a stir about it? What about if it was three people from Ireland? The IRA still uses bombs, doesn't it?
This person's name and picture has been released through the mainstream media. Even with the authorities saying "He had nothing to do with it!" people are still questioning his innocence, thanks both social and mainstream media. Really? Would you WANT to stay in a country where everyone was sure you were a terrorist? Turn this around and think about what would happen if you were in a foreign country where something like this had happened. Wouldn't you want to go home as quickly as possible if your name and picture were being spread as someone who was responsible, especially if you weren't? Apparently, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't work if you are of middle eastern descent.
I have seen posts on Facebook saying, essentially, "I don't want to know the motives behind the bombing, because that means the terrorists accomplish their goal and get their message heard." I partially agree with that. The more publicity there is on why they did it, the more it shows that this is an effective method of communicating a message. No, I don't think that the information should be hidden, but it shouldn't be broadcast, either. Yes, it should be studied, and should be taught in appropriate places (college classes, law enforcement training courses, etc) but without the names of the people, or even, necessarily, the specifics of the events. Let the lessons be learned without the terrorist message being broadcast. Have the information available for people who want to seek it out who actually want to know, not just those who want speculation, rumors, and sensationalism.
I know that a lot of people won't agree with me, and in the middle of the rant I probably missed some important things. Still, it comes down to the fact that there's a difference between hiding something, and simply not advertising it. Information shouldn't be hidden, necessarily, but it doesn't always have to be advertised, either.
Now, if someone really wants to know what's going on, or what happened, I don't have a problem with them being able to find out. However, sensationalist news media is not necessarily the way to do that. Some things should not be broadcast to the world at large.
Understand that I am not saying any of the things being questioned are or are not true. The actual truth of the assertions isn't my point. My point is that these are not things the mainstream media necessarily should be broadcasting.
One set of the "unanswered questions" revolves around whether or not there was a bomb squad drill going on the day of the marathon. Some people say they were being told there was a drill, others say the authorities deny there was a drill. People say they saw bomb dogs sniffing around at the marathon and extra security inspecting the marathon area. So the question being hinted at seems to be..."did they know there were bombs, or had there been a bomb threat that they didn't tell anyone about?"
The answer, in my mind, is they probably did have a bomb thread, or at least "chatter" about a bombing at the marathon. Should they have broadcast it? In my mind, NO. They did what they could/should have done - Investigate quietly with heightened vigilance. First, what good would it have done to broadcast the fact that there was a bomb threat? It would have caused panic, making it harder for people to investigate. Also, if a bomb threat or chatter about a possibility of a bomb,which I'm sure happens a lot more than we actually hear about, is enough to disrupt something the size of the Marathon, then terrorists don't have to use actual bombs, they just have to hint at the possibility to achieve their goals. The terrorists would win.
Another set of questions involves a Saudi national who was, in theory, originally identified as a "person of interest". The article I read was questioning why Michelle Obama visited this person in the hospital, and why there were unscheduled meetings between the President and someone from the Saudi government. Well...watching the news on the day of the bombing, I know there was someone who was being reported early as a "person of interest", but the authorities were saying, right away, that No, he was NOT someone they were looking at. There's a decent chance that's the person they were talking about.
More of the questions about this person involve the fact that he was photographed with two other Saudi nationals earlier that day, and the fact that he is now scheduled to leave the country "with the full blessing of the US Government." Lets look at this logically. What is so strange or wrong with him being photographed with other people from his home country? Couldn't they just be his friends? The Boston Marathon brings people from around the world. If it was three people from France, or from South Africa who were being photographed together, would there be a stir about it? What about if it was three people from Ireland? The IRA still uses bombs, doesn't it?
This person's name and picture has been released through the mainstream media. Even with the authorities saying "He had nothing to do with it!" people are still questioning his innocence, thanks both social and mainstream media. Really? Would you WANT to stay in a country where everyone was sure you were a terrorist? Turn this around and think about what would happen if you were in a foreign country where something like this had happened. Wouldn't you want to go home as quickly as possible if your name and picture were being spread as someone who was responsible, especially if you weren't? Apparently, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't work if you are of middle eastern descent.
I have seen posts on Facebook saying, essentially, "I don't want to know the motives behind the bombing, because that means the terrorists accomplish their goal and get their message heard." I partially agree with that. The more publicity there is on why they did it, the more it shows that this is an effective method of communicating a message. No, I don't think that the information should be hidden, but it shouldn't be broadcast, either. Yes, it should be studied, and should be taught in appropriate places (college classes, law enforcement training courses, etc) but without the names of the people, or even, necessarily, the specifics of the events. Let the lessons be learned without the terrorist message being broadcast. Have the information available for people who want to seek it out who actually want to know, not just those who want speculation, rumors, and sensationalism.
I know that a lot of people won't agree with me, and in the middle of the rant I probably missed some important things. Still, it comes down to the fact that there's a difference between hiding something, and simply not advertising it. Information shouldn't be hidden, necessarily, but it doesn't always have to be advertised, either.
