UPDATED: Attacker at Ohio State University killed

I know it's a tangent, but ... we don't? Of course, we do. Again and again and again and again. How do you think the vast majority of wrongful convictions occur? I bet if you surveyed the United States citizenry, it would be a statistical heat between whether they consider eyewitness testimony or DNA evidence more reliable. I've been in rooms with prosecutors who just can't get past eyewitness testimony, even eyewitness testimony from total dolts, tainted by suggestive detectives.

 

OK. Fair point.

But, the majority of the liberal reporters on this site would criticize these convictions, because they know eyewitness is often faulty.

But, they'll defend the idea of putting a microphone in front of the first 18-year-old, who will stop to talk, after fleeing a building.

There's no vetting of the witness. They have no idea what the witness saw. They have no idea what kind of witness he is; if he's prone to exaggeration, or self-aggrandizement.

And, they'll do it the next time too.

 

Not to talk about the actual incident or anything, but I did notice the usual Internet comments about how more concealed weapons would have been great in this situation.

Of course, people did not seem to know the cop was not a deranged shooter, but by all means, let's have more people with the ability to open fire.

 

You really sound clueless here.

I covered this sort of shit for a long time - I was more than capable of determining how credible any given witness was before I asked him/her to be interviewed.

And, by the way, the alternative to what you're complaining about is often to report nothing. I'm guessing you'd find a way to complain about that as well.

 

So, the reporter has no obligation to even attempt to ensure that what he allows to go out is truthful? Really?

Let me ask you this: in other breaking news stories, that have lasted longer, we've seen amateurs tweet out what they've heard on a police scanner -- things like a name or description of a suspect. I'm thinking specifically of the San Bernardino shooting.

And, we've seen these tweets get widely shared before the information contained in them was either confirmed or proven false.

In these cases, we see professional journalists tell people not to share what they hear on the scanner. That scanner conversations aren't always factual. That the gathering of information includes rumors and false leads that should not be shared until confirmed.

And, so, we have a disconnect.

Scanner conversations are information that could be shared during a breaking news story. If it's not the reporters job to ensure the truthfulness of these conversations, why don't they broadcast the contents of them?

 

Professionals are allowed to get shit wrong.

 

Reporting on the incident at Ohio State yesterday:

Weapon: gun, reported immediately.

Number of people involved: Multiple, reported shortly into the story, based on eye witness reports. Photographs of students in handcuffs were used to bolster this report.

Suspect's name: took hours, and came from police sources.

Motivation: way too soon to speculate.

LOL. great job guys.

 

I ask w/ genuine interest: How exactly were you able to determine this?

 

Which people? Wasn't the cop in uniform?

If so, the people who saw what happened would presumably know that he was a cop, vs. the people who only heard gunshots, and may have been mistaken.

Seems like a lot of yesterday's "eyewitnesses" were really "earwitnesses".

 

More like errwitnessees!

 

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓