Boston Marathon
Boston Marathon Bombing
Week 3/HUM 111
Renita Varnado
Randy Gordon
Due: April 21, 2013
As families waited for their loved ones to cross the finish line, two massive bombs erupted, changing the lives of everyone in Boston forever. When the story broke, there was ciaos all around so the reporting was not completely clear by what had happened. Unfortunately in instances like this it is impossible to report the most accurate news. The facts were being reported as they received them, so it is difficult to say if the news reports ignored any information. They attempted to keep the information up to date and reported the injuries as they were notified. As the story reported it was evident that this was a terrorist act, it just wasn’t clear why Boston was chosen as the attack point. There weren’t any obvious questionable assumptions implicit in the story as it was evident this was a terrorist attack, although in the beginning a man was falsely accused of being involved in the incident. He maintained his innocence but his picture was still placed in the news as a person of interest. This type of reporting is always detrimental to any person. The same error happened in the Olympic bombings and an innocent man was falsely accused. His life was never the same and it basically destroyed his life. It is very important to make distinctions when undertaking critical evaluations because sometimes the news reports on what makes a great story, but as the information is peeled away what was originally reported becomes evident that the reports were quick to judge.
In news reports as detrimental as this bombing was with the injuries and deaths, information can be quick to be reported and people may be quick to judge. It is always best to wait until days later to form an opinion as to what has actually happened. Now it has been determined that two brothers were involved in the bombing as one was killed and the other in the hospital. We must
ask
Week 3/HUM 111
Renita Varnado
Randy Gordon
Due: April 21, 2013
As families waited for their loved ones to cross the finish line, two massive bombs erupted, changing the lives of everyone in Boston forever. When the story broke, there was ciaos all around so the reporting was not completely clear by what had happened. Unfortunately in instances like this it is impossible to report the most accurate news. The facts were being reported as they received them, so it is difficult to say if the news reports ignored any information. They attempted to keep the information up to date and reported the injuries as they were notified. As the story reported it was evident that this was a terrorist act, it just wasn’t clear why Boston was chosen as the attack point. There weren’t any obvious questionable assumptions implicit in the story as it was evident this was a terrorist attack, although in the beginning a man was falsely accused of being involved in the incident. He maintained his innocence but his picture was still placed in the news as a person of interest. This type of reporting is always detrimental to any person. The same error happened in the Olympic bombings and an innocent man was falsely accused. His life was never the same and it basically destroyed his life. It is very important to make distinctions when undertaking critical evaluations because sometimes the news reports on what makes a great story, but as the information is peeled away what was originally reported becomes evident that the reports were quick to judge.
In news reports as detrimental as this bombing was with the injuries and deaths, information can be quick to be reported and people may be quick to judge. It is always best to wait until days later to form an opinion as to what has actually happened. Now it has been determined that two brothers were involved in the bombing as one was killed and the other in the hospital. We must
ask