A pair of explosions rocks the finish line at the Boston Marathon, injuring at least a half-dozen people.

I heard there is video of the first shoot out

I can't be the only one who felt like the 24/7 news coverage of this was tantamount to propaganda, right? Thought experiment: how could have the coverage been more solemn, overblown, and in your face? It was like something out of a movie. Seeing those bombs go off over and over and over (kind of like towers collapsing on 9/11 - over and over 5,000 times) makes a mark in the mind. Then like a video game or movie, the "bad guy" is caught at the end and your average prole feels a sense of pride; the number of flag-wavings spikes. USA! USA! The need to question or be rational is lost in the collective craze.

People forget that as far as tragedies go, the number of dead here was pretty tame (also kind of lame how all the injured people got ignored because a few people died, and of course a kid dying gets the emotions going the most, so he gets extra special mention). There was also not much you could do, as an individual, to prevent it or reduce the risk you would be in such an incident, exceedingly rare as they are - and after it happened, there wasn't much you could do either. As usual, a few dozen other causes of death were more likely to befall you, including your transit to and from work. People aren't very good at putting risk in perspective, and the media and government don't have a particular interest in helping them do so. If you think about it, actually, the funny thing is this incident almost certainly reduced the total number of deaths that would have otherwise happened from crime, car accidents, etc., since the area was on lockdown and people weren't travelling.

Here's another thought experiment: how would people have reacted differently to this event if there was no TV, or perhaps even radio? There couldn't be 24/7 coverage and audio-visual overload. People would, I imagine, take in the information more rationally and not lose their collective minds. A handful of people dead, a good amount injured (though to put it in perspective, just in the last week or two, more people died in riots over elections in Venezuela, a Chinese earthquake, and that Texas fertilizer plant explosion... not to mention how, as far as terrorist attacks go, this is pretty mild compared to what happens elsewhere or could happen). That sucks, but bad things happen. Let's be pro-active, let's question, but let's also not be whipped into a frenzy that may be designed to make us trade liberty for the phantom of security.

Now we wait to see what the establishment uses this event for. It won't be good, now that the propaganda has wormed its way in. They already put an entire city under martial law (a whole different story there, how the cops go into kill mode in events like this, or with Dorner, or with pulling out SWAT teams at the slightest provocation), so that was a nice bit of practice. What's next?

I don't think the news coverage is to blame. You need to start making a distinction between the inherent speculative nature of bleeding edge news coverage and coverage where the " fog of war" has lifted, background checks have been made and reflection is possible. The last kind of news coverage was pretty factual and mostly non- propagandist as far as I have seen, anyway. I think people need to make better choices on what news they see. It's better not to dwell too much in the bleeding edge coverage, imo.

Also, i'd like to mention that obama's speeches were right on the money, imo. What do you think?

What news was covering this more soberly? Any US news source was along for the ride, for ratings and whatever other reason. The only thing I saw even remotely resembling criticism of the coverage was a blurb on The Daily Show, which mentioned how the 24/7, breakneck coverage was putting a bunch of speculation out there and preventing, y'know, thoughtfulness. The foreign press may have been less insane, but it's the US news that is going to be relevant to most people, especially those most susceptible to having their emotions stirred up. In regards to the point of the coverage after the fact, well, how much does it really matter? As I brought up in the previous post, the image of the Twin Towers collapsing, run on reel for days on end, is what stuck in people's minds, not the minutia of the forensics, not the consequences to liberty. People were inundated with what "the bad guys" did and wanted to get "the bad guys". Sober analysis after the fact just isn't sexy, and it requires thinking.

Regarding Obama, he's just a politician with something to sell, like most of them, so no, I wasn't particularly impressed by what he said. Then again, I'm one of those weirdos who think the president isn't supposed to be our collective daddy, but simply an executive over a limited government. I would have liked to hear him say, if he had to say anything, that we won't let terrorism win by scaring us into submission and giving up our rights. It seems to me like many politicians never get out of campaign mode, and Obama, I must confess, is very effective at that. Witness the recent examples of his usage of children after Sandy Hook and the finger-waving when more gun control wasn't approved. He knows very well about the celebrity, imperial nature of the modern presidency, so it's hard for me to take much of anything he does or says seriously. Sorry for the rant, but it's all part of a whole to me: sleekness, appeals to emotion, propaganda in a word, over any rationality or critical thinking. (To dampen the partisans, this criticism of mine isn't just limited to Obama or dems, but the political-media-corporate circus in general.)

If you want better news coverage, your first action would be to throw your TV out of the window. I did, and I can assure you it's a huge improvement. Watching TV is like drinking those sugary beverages people tend to get obese about.

On Obama; I can see where the cynicism is coming from, but I 'd just like to point at the good aspects that are there. Which I think even the nay- sayers could see. Obama doesn't control the people of Newtown, btw. Don't blame him for those people making themselves heard in the discussion. And, imo, don't blame him either for putting his own integrity on the line by involving himself in that discussion the way he did. Whenever he's talking resonsibility on any issue, I don't think there's much propaganda involved. Because propaganda is about the exact opposite. It's about refusing responsibility, by distorting reality. What is he distorting here?

yeah why do people still get news from TV?

It reminds me of people who complain about things they do willingly. Makes no sense. It's like drinking Drain-o and then complaining about how evil and toxic Drain-o is and then continuing to drink Drain-o.

i don't really think it's a problem exclusively born out of TV news coverage. Popemobilev2 agree with everything you said. It's pretty disgusting how something which is in reality very insignificant in the larger scheme of things blown up into such a huge spectacle.

I think regardless of what the US government wants to 'push through' in the wake of heightened terrorism fears, the way the public and the media and police responded is pretty good evidence that our 'abuse response' as a collective public is still very much in place and ready to be activated. I call it an abuse response because I feel that during the Bush administration we were emotionally abused by the president of the united states and the 'media' that we had come to trust. All of the same civil liberties encroaching terrorism legislation is still firmly in place under Obama, and most likely will be when he leaves but he plays it a lot more subtly than Bush did in the fear mongering arena. Probably a smarter overall approach if your goal is the long con, Bush's egregious behavior might have woken too many people up to the institutionalized corruption of the US government.

decent Greenwald article about the implications of no miranda rights for the bombing suspect

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights

was there a more significant event going on during those few days in usa ?

well that's a very relative question. If you mean was there anything ongoing as salacious that would keep people glued to the televsion then the answer is no.

it seems that a few people are bothered by the extensive coverage of all this, so for the sake of public good what event was more deserving of a coverage instead of boston bombings/the hunt for terrorists ?

well that's a difficult question to answer. I think the real criticism is that they way it was being covered, and some of the charged language and misleading facts that were given out. When i turned on the TV my original perception of the Boston Marathon 1 hour out was that there was a city wide coordinated mass terrorist bombing occurring. It also said that 10 people had died. No matter what kind of retractions they do after the fact those 'facts' getting put out there have consequences.

On Fox news for instance, they played an animated gif of the explosion with that old runner falling down on loop during almost every interview they did during the day taking up 50% of the screen.

The fact that they covered it at length is not really the issue, it's that they hyped up the emotional impact of it as much as they possibly could. By keeping people's blood pumping they get people to keep watching and not change the channel. Not that the news media would ever come out and tell people 'don't panic' but they essentially did the exact opposite of that.

There's a very thin line where absolute statements are made about relative events.

I think it's odd to sidestep the current handling of lawenforcers and government with things that took place under Bush and the laws which were created there. When taking everything into account, the one point that allows for actual criticism, at this point, was the miranda rights thing. From my point of view, i understand the implications from both side of the argument. Point being, imo, there's no obvious right or wrong here.

If anything, it give me trust this discussion is already taking place. And the most important reason it takes place, imo, is because lawenforcers and government were transparent about it. Give credit where it's due.

And don't blame the media for the crap that people are viewing. Just stop watching that crap and it will all go away. That at least one aspect of capitalism we can all agree on.

You want me to give credit to the city and US government for explaining to me in a transparent fashion why they didn't mirandize the guy? I'm sorry I can't do that. edit: I do give a little bit of credit to Obama for not seizing on this by fear mongering the public even more. At least from what I saw he did not do that. Tom Ridge would have raised the color of the threat level (remember that ridiculous shit?!)

I think there are plenty of other legit criticisms and questions besides that. Did the police block helicopters from filming the events? If so, why? What evidence can we see as the public that implicates both men in the bombings? I have not seen it. What kind of explosives did they throw out of the vehicle during a chase? Was that factual or heat of the moment police scanner chatter? Why did the police media keep saying they were wearing bombs? Was that simply a fear or based in actual fact. I'd like answers to all these things. they may not seem important to you but they are to me.

the only thing I got out of a lot of those false-flag memes was that those 2 boys were originally only 2 out of 6 different people who looked like they were doing suspicious shit in those pictures. I can remember 3 other people distinctly that were wearing large backups who at some point were not wearing them as well as other strange behavior (looking away from the race while the rest of the crowd was viewing). If the FBI provides no other evidence to us that they were responsible, I find it pretty upsetting especially in light of people literally cheering on the death of a human being who was riddled with possibly hundreds of bullets

  On 4/22/2013 at 10:11 AM, goDel said:

And don't blame the media for the crap that people are viewing. Just stop watching that crap and it will all go away. That at least one aspect of capitalism we can all agree on.

while it's a nice ideal, it's sort of the same argument as saying if you're going to complain about Monsanto stop buying their corn.

i think the way it was covered on the tv is very reminiscent of the way it's covered on the internets, on sites like reddit and even here. you get tons of mindless speculations, every little blurb of information, whether verified or not, is posted, countless photos of the bombing from every possible angle, countless photos of the guy with his legs blown off and other gory stuff, etc.

you're absolutely right, and in part I think the mainstream media's sensationalist methods have influenced those sort of crowd sourced media gathering methods.

I think it's a bit inconsistent to argue on one side that the event is overhyped and to argue on the other side that lawenforcers are not allowed to keep (media)helicopters out of the air. Even though they might have perfectly good reasons for it.

On that last bit: the point of journalistic freedom is about the freedom to tell a story at some point in time. If you don't want any hyped up journalism, you of all people should understand the non- value of those live coverage journalists. So lawenforcers denying those news junkies their instant feedback could be argued to be a good thing. Especially in this instance, where you of all people are sensitive about the media creating a fictional coverage of realtime events. At least acknowledge the impossibility of unbiased coverage of realtime events as were taking place last week. News is about creating meaning, and whenever that process doesn't have the time to factcheck, cross check and to reflect, it should be obvious it should betaken with a grain of salt.

Interestingly you yourself were glued to media outlets as if you were on some drug. You said something of that nature a couple of times in this thread, right?That not the problem of the media. That's your thing. If you want a more sober version of the news, you should be willing to take a step back yourself, as well.

Well read what I said again, I didn't suggest that they aren't allowed to do that. I just want to know why they did, especially in light of a death and near death during a police chase. Sometimes but not always when cops have revenge on their mind they don't want cameras on them.

I think you're personalizing the media thing too much. I'm not really upset at the news media for what I chose to do to myself, I just feel very strongly that a lot of ignorant people who glue themselves to CNN or Foxnews do not think very critically about what's happening and that can't be a good thing.

I acknowledge what you are saying but that's a much more macro complaint than the one I'm making. I'm more concerned with the way in which it was presented. Are you really trying to suggest that because I have no right to complain about it if I chose to watch it? I think you'd be barking up the wrong tree to suggest I should just sit back and be ok with the state of current mainstream TV coverage, especially on terrorism.

  On 4/22/2013 at 10:24 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

you're absolutely right, and in part I think the mainstream media's sensationalist methods have influenced those sort of crowd sourced media gathering methods.

maybe the mainstream media simply realizes there's a huge public interest in such events (especially those involving explosions, gore, chases, police ops and stuff) as evident on the internet and reacts accordingly ?

I think you're underpersonalizing the media thing.

Just go back in this thread and read how the story evolves and what your part was in it. From my point of view, you're basically a news junky who was unable to take a step back and now you're blaming the media for the hype they created. And that hype is not in your head, but in other peoples heads? I don't know... I'm from communistic europe, so I 'm not entitled to have an opinion, but if the media was covering a completely unbiased and 24/7 live account, people would still be crying hype.

Im off to work btw. Love the discussion, but hope im not getting too ad hominem ( although i know im awfully close at points) if i get too close justtell me im an idiot and ill back off. I completely respectyour opinion even though my language doesnt always show it that way

i like you guys. watmm.

mainstream media today reminds me of the portrayal of it in natural born killers.

this seems to be the most detail i could find about how the first shootout transpired on friday night.

  Quote

In the early hours of Friday, the pair allegedly carjacked a Mercedez-Benz SUV in Cambridge, forced the driver to withdraw cash at an ATM, then let him go at a gas station.

The driver called 911 and reported that he'd been held up at gunpoint by two men who said they were the marathon bombers. He also said he'd left his cell phone in the car.

Police were able to track the cell phone -- and the car -- to Watertown, just west of Boston.

Just before 1 a.m. Friday, a lone Watertown cop came upon the brothers, who were now driving two cars, police Chief Edward Deveau said. They were armed with guns, pipe bombs and other explosives. Both cars stopped and the brothers leaped out and opened fire before backup could arrive.

Other officers responded to the pinned-down officer's call for help.More than 200 shots were fired in 5 to 10 minutes.

Deveau said the brothers tossed explosives at police, including a homemade pressure-cooker bomb.

The older brother, Tamerlan, walked straight toward the cops but ran out of ammunition. He'd been wounded. An officer tackled him and police were handcuffing him when Dzhokhar tried to escape in the Mercedes. He aimed the car at the officers, who dove out of the way, and he ran over his brother. The Mercedes dragged the older brother down the street as it sped away.

The driver continued to exchange gunfire with police, then jumped out of the SUV and ran into the darkness.

 

That account is so bazaar.

How exactly does one toss a pressure-cooker bomb? They're heavy and bluky enough even without any explosives. Even worlds-strongest-man-barrel-over-the-head style you might be able to send one 10, 15 feet tops.

Also, it makes it appear that they were in the process of apprehending a wounded (but presumably still alive) older brother, thus the death blow was vehicular??