Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

[phiwum]

So stripping a man in public in front of cameras based on speculation is "reasonably cautious", but discussing a current event on social media based on FBI descriptions is irresponsible. Got it.

You can roll your li'l eyes all you want, but the fact is that, yes, we judge actions differently depending on context. And the actions of officers at the scene of a gunfight when faced with an individual who they believe is suspicious and may have hidden explosives occur in a radically different context than armchair detectives scouring photos in the comfort of their dens.

Like I said, we seem to be at an impasse here. Tell you what: you can have the last cutesy smiley face and we'll drop this faux argument.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I get the feeling you disagree. The tag #FreeJahar is terrorist sympathy itself.

Using it to hilite a message of support for a terrorist is ........? Please fill in the blanks.

Implicating one-self.

 

[WildCat]

No, I'm saying it was more than the Post that has been doing that.



Did you read the Post's coverage at all?

Specifically, what was the Post wrong about? Try using actual quotes, instead of paraphrasing.

And if you can't understand the difference between what the police did as a precaution to someone at the scene in the immediate aftermath of a violent shootout where one suspect was killed and another escaped, and the ******** the Post did, then this is not going to be a very productive conversation.

I do understand it. The Post didn't strip anyone naked in public in front of gawking picture-snapping bystanders.

That the hospitalized Saudi student was a suspect and that the Feds were seeking the two kids whose picture they ran on their front page.

Don't know anything about the Saudi, but the feds were seeking information on the people pictured on their front page. The feds were the ones passing around that pic in the first place.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Implicating one-self.

A couple of minutes ago:

Was concerned to see that #freejahar was trending until I realized 90% of the tweets are from people complaining that it's trending.

And that's what the douchebags who use the tag to tell the FBI to investigate people who use the tag seem incapable of getting. And they help making it trend, of course.

 

[phiwum]

I see your point and that is an interesting situation in itself. Obviously some publications rely less on a perception of credibility than others. Still, I think the Post would be just as legally responsible as the NY Times for publication of accusations without a reasonable good faith basis to believe they were true. I haven't seen exactly what was published in the Post but if the good faith basis for publishing the accusation was too low, I think the student should be compensated. If the accusation was not published with significant and clear cut information that the basis for the accusation was sketchy and not confirmed by the authorities I would hope that the student would be very significantly compensated.

I wouldn't even mind seeing whoever did the speculating on the internet being held responsible if the accusations weren't characterized as speculation that could easily be wrong.

I agree with you, for the most part. Professional journalists (should that be in scare quotes when we refer to the Post?) have a much greater responsibility here than the internet sleuths.

By and large, my view isn't that the internet sleuths caused great and irreparable harm, but they did cause non-negligible and avoidable harm to the lives of some innocent persons. Their shenanigans were different from the Vicsim folks in degree, but their techniques weren't all that different.

And, mostly, I don't think people should pretend that the online sleuths played a real, positive role in this case. They were well-intentioned, but fairly reckless in the way that they publicly discussed real, innocent people and any positive outcome (such as the FBI releasing the photos earlier than they otherwise would have) is purely accidental and no more praiseworthy than the 7-11 robber.

 

[A'isha]

Specifically, what was the Post wrong about? Try using actual quotes, instead of paraphrasing.

I did.

[quoteI do understand it. [/quote]

Obviously not, if you're trying to compare what police at a crime scene in Boston did to what a tabloid in New York did.

[qupte]Don't know anything about the Saudi, but the feds were seeking information on the people pictured on their front page. The feds were the ones passing around that pic in the first place.[/QUOTE]

The only the people the Feds were seeking based on pictures from the bombing were the two actual suspects, based on security camera footage. The pictures of the two high school kids came from images circulating on the internet, and the two were never "sought" by the Feds.

 

[WildCat]

Anonymous "Federal law enforcement sources" quoted by the media have had a rather poor track record of accuracy this week.

Ah, so now it's a conspiracy between the NY Post and ABC?

 

[applecorped]

You can roll your li'l eyes all you want, but the fact is that, yes, we judge actions differently depending on context. And the actions of officers at the scene of a gunfight when faced with an individual who they believe is suspicious and may have hidden explosives occur in a radically different context than armchair detectives scouring photos in the comfort of their dens.

Like I said, we seem to be at an impasse here. Tell you what: you can have the last cutesy smiley face and we'll drop this faux argument.

 

[phiwum]

Ah, so now it's a conspiracy between the NY Post and ABC?

Why are you purposely misrepresenting others' claims?

 

[phiwum]

Glad you got that off your chest, but I have to say that it came off as a bit of a mixed message.

 

[A'isha]

Ah, so now it's a conspiracy between the NY Post and ABC?

Did you completely miss what happened with CNN and other news outlets this week, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

 

[WildCat]

I did.

[quoteI do understand it.

Obviously not, if you're trying to compare what police at a crime scene in Boston did to what a tabloid in New York did. [/quote]
Ah, so you can't actually quote an actual error. I'm shocked shocked shocked!

The only the people the Feds were seeking after they ruled out Barhoun based on pictures from the bombing were the two actual suspects, based on security camera footage. The pictures of the two high school kids came from images circulating on the internet, and the two were never "sought" by the Feds.

ftfy

 

[Belz...]

I did.

Actually, where ?

 

[zeggman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-investigation-of-the-boston-marathon-bombing/2013/04/20/19d8c322-a8ff-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_print.html

"Patrick said the images of Suspect No. 2 reacting to the first explosion provided “highly incriminating” evidence, “a lot more than the public knows.”"

Fist pump?

 

[A'isha]

Actually, where ?

Ah, so you can't actually quote an actual error. I'm shocked shocked shocked!

"Investigators have a suspect — a Saudi Arabian national — in the horrific Boston Marathon bombings, The Post has learned."

"Feds seek these two pictured at Boston Marathon"

ftfy

No, they never sought the two high schoolers as suspects, and focused on the two who were later identified as the Chechen brothers long before the internet found the pictures run by the Post.

 

[davefoc]

...

And, mostly, I don't think people should pretend that the online sleuths played a real, positive role in this case. They were well-intentioned, but fairly reckless in the way that they publicly discussed real, innocent people and any positive outcome (such as the FBI releasing the photos earlier than they otherwise would have) is purely accidental and no more praiseworthy than the 7-11 robber.

The major role that they may have played was to get the authorities to release images of the suspects sooner than they might have. There are several issues here:

1. It might not be true.
2. It might not have been a good thing if it was true.
3. The effect was incidental to the intent and actions of the internet sleuths and it may not be relevant to assessing the benefits of the internet sleuths. We wouldn't give a street flower salesperson credit for saving the life of a person he sold flowers to if the delay of the potential victim caused him to miss a train that ran off the tracks.

Overall, right now, I think we have a mild disagreement about the situation. I suspect that the delay of releasing the information was not a good strategy overall and that assuming the internet sleuths did get the FBI to release the information sooner than they might have, it was probably a good thing. But I certainly admit that my speculation could be completely wrong on every level.

I can see that the FBI might have sat on the pictures for an hour or so while they tried to identify the suspects on their own, but when that effort failed, I think it was time to get the images released so that somebody in the public could identify the suspects and drive the effort forward to get these guys. There were many risks involved in not making every effort to get the suspects as fast as possible and it looks to me like those risks outweigh the risk that the suspects would either commit another violent act as a result of their identification or successfully flee as a result of being identified. And of course, most of the possible reasons for not releasing the images sooner become moot once descriptions of the suspects has been released, since the suspects would then know it was only a matter of time before their full identities would be known.

 

[applecorped]

Glad you got that off your chest, but I have to say that it came off as a bit of a mixed message.

Mixed messages are my forte. Not really.

 

[phiwum]

Overall, right now, I think we have a mild disagreement about the situation. I suspect that the delay of releasing the information was not a good strategy overall and that assuming the internet sleuths did get the FBI to release the information sooner than they might have, it was probably a good thing. But I certainly admit that my speculation could be completely wrong on every level.

I really don't have an opinion on that at all, so we can't call it a disagreement.

I just don't think I know the reasons for the FBI's decisions, the cause of the mayhem on Thursday night, or what was likely to have happened if the photos weren't released, so I haven't a clue whether the FBI's strategy was sound or not.

 

[zeggman]

No, they never sought the two high schoolers as suspects, and focused on the two who. ere later identified as the Chechen brothers long before the internet found the pictures run by the Post.

I'll assume this is correct. It may be that the Post saw the white baseball cap on one of the guys in the picture it ran, and (since the cap but not the pictures had been announced/leaked) assumed the guy wearing it was suspect #2.

I don't know if that's what happened or not, but if the FBI had released its pictures sooner it would have been obvious that the two "bag men" were not the suspects being sought.

ETA: BTW, is the other bag man "in fear for his life"? If not, why not?

 

[Childlike Empress]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-investigation-of-the-boston-marathon-bombing/2013/04/20/19d8c322-a8ff-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_print.html

"Patrick said the images of Suspect No. 2 reacting to the first explosion provided “highly incriminating” evidence, “a lot more than the public knows.”"

Fist pump?

Although he also says that he didn't see it himself, but was told about it in "a briefing". See video here. They told him that

"It does seem to be pretty clear that this suspect took the backpack off, put it down, did not react when the first explosion went off and then moved away from the backpack in time for the second explosion," Patrick said. "It's pretty clear about his involvement and pretty chilling, frankly."

Patrick said he hadn't viewed the videotape but had been briefed by law enforcement officials about it.