UPDATED: Attacker at Ohio State University killed

This also is how someone like Trump gets elected.

People like YF slobber over any instant video clip or sound bite that fits their world view.

 

So, when an eyewitnesses say they saw something, the media should not report it?

 

Quit your fuckin' whining!

 

I agree that the immediacy of information on social media could save lives in an emergency. But the counter is, if the information isn't accurate, couldn't it also potentially do more harm than good?

 

On the other hand, people who get all their news from TV and the Internet have no right to complain.

 

There's a greater-than-zero chance, obviously. And it's a legitimate flip side to the argument. But I'm trying to think of how it could do more harm. Create a stampede? Not likely from people checking Twitter or social media. I'm sure there are ways I'm not thinking of, but it seems more likely to do good than harm, no?

 

There are other options?

 

[QUOTE="bigpern23, post: 4149254, member: 2569"I'm sure there are ways I'm not thinking of, but it seems more likely to do good than harm, no?[/QUOTE]

I know that if a selfie showed up online during a disaster rehearsal, and it gave away locations, safeguards, etc., the reaction would not be good.

 

Someone should strongly suggest members of the media be jailed for reporting "false" information.

Oh, wait...

 

Some of you need to thank YF for starting this legitimate debate.

 

No, we don't. He throws this shit at the wall constantly and he is guilty of supporting his own points with crappy journalism quite often. That some of it stuck for once was a change in the situation, not his actions.

 

* Print newspaper websites excluded for Internet reference. More filters and fact-checking, etc.