Could the Tsarnaev Brothers Have Been Stopped?

Tamerlan Tsarnaev (l) and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Source: Business Insider)

When the news came out shortly after the marathon bombings that Moscow had contacted Washington about Tamerlan Tsarnaev's 2011 trip to the Caucasus region in Russia, I wanted to wait for more information to surface because of the very tense history between Chechnya and Moscow. Vladimir Putin's history with Chechen separatists is long and incredibly complex, to say the least. All of this is a large grain of salt when it comes to Russian intelligence on any Caucasus separatist movement and alleged members.

On top of this, the separatist movements found in the North Caucasus region of Russia have one enemy in their eyes: Russia. It makes no sense, as some were quick to rush to postulate in the aftermath of the Marathon Bombings, that the Chechen separatist movement would attack American targets. There's a litany of reasons why this is true, but the main is that it makes no sense to attack a country who is usually at diplomatic odds with the country you view as your sworn enemy. It'd be like Puerto Rico attacking Saudi Arabia because they want to be independent from the United States.

Why Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Should Be Tried in Criminal Court in the United States

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Source: USA Today)

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a United States citizen who committed crimes on American soil. This is the beginning and the end of the conversation.

Honestly, I was more shocked than I should have been that people would call to try the surviving terrorist from the marathon bombings as an enemy combatant. I knew some people would say it; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed a heinous crime against innocent civilians and this obviously engenders very strong emotions. But there is a very important reason why Tsarnaev should be tried in criminal court in the U.S.

Graphic Photos: To Publish or Not to Publish?

Note: This post is about graphic images and prominently displays a graphic image from last Monday's marathon bombing that some media outlets deemed too graphic to fully publish.

The scene after the Boston Marathon bombing (Source: Wikipedia)

A debate has popped up recently over the ethics of publishing gruesome photos like those of Marathon Bombing victim Jeff Bauman. Some have said that publishing these photos is in poor taste because of the gore that it subjects its viewers to. The Daily News even went so far as to alter one image of the bloody scene to make it less graphic.

Before getting into the merits of publishing gut-wrenching photos, it is pretty obvious that the altering of press photographs is inherently wrong. The consensus is you either run the photo or not, but sneakily editing it the way that the Daily News did is never the right thing to do.

A Media Out of Control

Investigators combed through the scene of one of the blast sites on Wednesday morning. (Source: Boston Globe)

If you followed the news reporting on Monday after the bombing on Boylston Street, you would have noticed some very sloppy journalism and wild speculation. While some leeway can be given in times of crisis, the false reports coming out of places like the New York Post and cables news figures's Twitter feeds went well beyond that leeway.

A lot of the reaction was "Oh, well, everyone knows the Post is trash" or "Oh, well most of cable news is garbage anyway." I don't necessarily disagree with either of those sentiments, but at the same time they are news outlets and are looked to in times of information demand (the latter certainly more than the former.)

Today's "reporting" has shown why outlets like the New York Times and the major networks are still the king of clean and polished reports for breaking news. While outlets like CNN and AP and Boston.com were reporting that a suspect was in custody and heading to the courthouse, the Times and the major networks held off on reporting this.

Just for contrast, I'll write what was confirmed, and then in bold what was extracted from that by some irresponsible media outlets:

There is a major breakthrough in the marathon bombing case, as investigators have used Lord & Taylor CCTV to identify a suspect's face in the bombing. Investigators have a face and a name for the marathon bombing suspect and an arrest is imminent. The suspect is in custody and is heading to the Moakley Courthouse in South Boston.

Of course, this led to everyone scrambling to get to the courthouse, amassing outside. Then a bomb threat was relayed to the courthouse, causing a massive evacuation made much more logistically complicated thanks to all of the reporters who were there on false reports of a suspect in custody. It was a microcosm of shoddy journalism complicating legitimate law enforcement activities. A shameful one, at that.

I lump in all of the cable news networks together. If you're a right winger, you watch Fox News. A leftie? MSNBC is where you head. Stuck in an airport? CNN. The one thing all channels have in common is that they are driven by ratings over journalism and are not legitimate sources of good, hard information.

I will take this time to call out the Twitter account @BuzzFeedNews. Tweets like "Police SUV with dark tinted windows just pulled around to the back." or "WCVB: Van back into U.S. Fed. courthouse." are just asinine. Yes, law enforcement vehicles (including tinted SUVs and vans) can be found outside of a federal courthouse, sometimes moving, on any day of the year. To report this as some kind of significant news event is borderline predatory for pageviews and retweets. One thing it cannot be categorized as is news.

A friend of mine made a good point today. Assume that CNN or some other outlet was first in getting the scoop of an arrest. Next week, most people would forget who had it first. But everyone will certainly remember when CNN blasted "SUSPECT ARRESTED" on their website. They'll remember CNN anchors excitedly saying that an arrest has been made in the case. People don't forget that kind of misstep.

So what do we know? Well, for one, CNN learned absolutely nothing from their healthcare misreporting less than a year ago. We learned that for some reason, executives still view CNN as an industry-leader in the breaking news category. We learned that Wolf Blitzer and Jon King should not be on air during breaking news events. Unless you're interested in the relatively mundane traffic patterns outside of the Moakley Courthouse, @BuzzFeedNews probably isn't a good feed to follow. And when someone cites "a source," wait until clearer reports come out, preferable with a named official, before taking something and running with it.

Questions Unanswered in Boston

Newspapers for sale on Newbury Street (Source: Boston.com)

Last night I spent a good portion on GChat, speaking with a friend in Boston talking about how surreal the entire scene was yesterday. We signed off, saying that we will know more tomorrow. When I woke up this morning and watched the various press conferences I realized that would not be the case. A few items would be clarified, but the bombing would still be shrouded in mystery. Who had done this? Why?

I think these questions have led to a small debate about what constitutes terrorism. When CNN made the editorial decision to call what happened in Boston yesterday a terror attack and then the president did not reciprocate in his evening presser, some wondered why.

Terrorism does not have a proper definition under international law. The common definition of terrorism is an act of violence that meets three criteria (and the US's definition seems to mimic this):

1. A violent act intended to create fear or terror;
2. Is perpetrated to further a religious, ideological and/or political cause;
3. Deliberately targets or disregards the safety of non-combatants (civilians)

Yesterday's events definitely meet criteria 1 and 3. This was no accident and was meant to shatter the joy of the Massachusetts holiday and to shake this community to its core. Boston will bounce back; as Mayor Menino said we are a resilient city, but it would be hard to deny that this event has affected the city.

Yesterday's attack also shares a common terroristic trait: the cowardly targeting of civilians. Those gathered yesterday on Boylston to watch the end of the marathon were not state actors in wartime. They were innocent civilians gathered to celebrate the achievements of family and friends and enjoy the beginning of spring in Boston.

The question that many people are anxious to answer relates to motive. Who did this and why? Why bomb innocent civilians? What message was the bomber(s) trying to get across, if any? Until this is answered, we cannot say definitively that this is an act of terror.

While my hunch is that it is, we don't know that yet. The use of bombs at an event like this almost always indicates terrorism (with a few exceptions), but this could be the work of a deranged individual (think Aurora or Newtown) as opposed to someone trying to influence policy or misguidedly drive home some kind of ideology.

At the end of the day, though, this is simply semantics. Whether or not this falls under the pseudo-legal definition of terrorism will not bring back the victims. It will not repair the lives forever altered from senseless violence. It will not restore the atmosphere in Boston just prior to the attack. And that, in and of itself, is terrifying.

A Quick Word on Boston

Note: I wanted to break up this post into two parts. I had thought about making two separate posts, but I figured it would be a bit confusing. Part I is a personal reflection on the marathon and the inspiration of the event as a whole and the response of people today after the blast.

Part II is about the media response and the irresponsible speculation by journalists to fill air time and drive ratings and social media metrics.

I've written this so the first part is standalone, because not everyone is going to be in the mood to read about issues with today's media after such a tragedy.

Source: Boston Globe

Part I

Having grown up in the Boston area, and spent a decent amount of time on and around Boylston Street in high school, today's events at the marathon have hit close to home, to use a bad cliche. Patriots' Day is a special day in Massachusetts - a day off that most of the rest of the country does not get. Everyone who grew up in and around Boston can remember heading down to the marathon route to cheer on the runners as they go by in droves along the grueling 26.2 mile course.

Today's bombings will change the marathon for the foreseeable future. The openness and carefree vibe of the event will revert to a more closed and tense atmosphere next year and possibly for years to come. For an event with such a rich and vibrant history, from the revolutionary to the bizzarre to the inspirational, the fact that the marathon will forever be tainted with this tragedy is a shame.

Through all of this sadness and anger, watching the video of the scene right after the blast is inspiring in a way. It is inspiring because you see people rushing to the site of the blast, not knowing if there are any secondary devices waiting to take out first responders. It is inspiring to see cops, EMTs, firefighters, BAA volunteers, and runners working together to tear down barricades and get to the injured. Other stories of heroism and kindness coming out of the city do not replace the anger and fear and confusion that follow something like this, but it certainly helps to begin to displace them, which only time and reflection can do.

Part II

Unfortunately, in contrast to the heartwarming response to such evil, is the ridiculous speculation by media outlets. The Post reporting that a suspect is in custody and 12 people are dead (neither of which are confirmed true at the time of this writing and the latter having been reputed by BPD Commissioner Ed Davis multiple times). MSNBC jumped on the suspect bandwagon as well. This is just sloppy journalism with shoddy "sources."

On top of this, there is just wild speculation that has no business in a journalistic environment. I wasn't watching CNN, but from what I heard about Jane Harman she was just spewing speculation with zero basis in fact. Also Luke Russert thought that because he went to a Red Sox game twenty years ago when Waco happened that there could be a link to the marathon bombing.

Let me be clear about this: this could be an AQAP bombing. This could be a home-grown domestic terror bombing. If either scenario is true, Harman or Russert deserve zero credit for saying it on air/Twitter. Their speculation adds nothing to the fact finding that occurs after something like this, it adds nothing to the national discourse, and really only muddles what is going on and further confuses people. I understand there's a drive for ratings and retweets, to be the first to break a story, but that should never supersede journalism. Ever.

In times of tragedy like this there is a human drive to get the facts, to try to make sense of something like this in our minds. We need to see a cause and effect so we can prevent something like this in the future. Unfortunately, rationality and logic are far removed from an event like this and it simply does not make sense. Speculation with no factual backup to try to make sense of it is unfair to both the speculator and the speculatee. We look to the news for information and updates, not ratings-driven false scoops and made-up connections.