It's worth focusing on what the major media did last night, and one can use the Hot Air compilation to examine that. I understand that in the early stages of significant and complex news stories, it's to be expected that journalists will have incomplete and even inaccurate information. It's unreasonable to expect them to avoid errors entirely. The inherently confusing nature of a mass shooting like this, combined with the need to rely on second-hand or otherwise unreliable sources (including, sometimes, official ones), will mean that even conscientious reporters end up with inaccurate information in cases like this. That's all understandable and inevitable.

But shouldn't there be some standards governing what gets reported and what is held back? Particularly in a case like this -- which, for obvious reasons, has the potential to be quite inflammatory on a number of levels -- having the major media "report" completely false assertions as fact can be quite harmful. It's often th

It's the US Military. Do you honestly think we'll ever get an honest answer about what really happened? Not bloody likely. They're as bad as the Catholic Church when it comes to covering stuff up.

It's the US Military. Do you honestly think we'll ever get an honest answer about what really happened? Not bloody likely. They're as bad as the Catholic Church when it comes to covering stuff up.