Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 11

• 0%

  BoxMonkey5 months ago

  So , if it wasn't Karnes , who was it ? Can't they check those friggin' cameras they have everywhere in Manhattan to see who it was ? I mean , if you were jay walking they'd probably send you a ticket in the mail like they do if your car or truck is caught going thru a yellow light that just turned red . And yes , I realize they [ The Authorities ] may not know who you are yet , but with RFID it won't be long b-4 they'll click your pic and send you the tic .

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    libsRfunny5 months ago

    The current state of journalism continues to spiral downward - particularly regarding the NY Times.

    Reply
• 0%

  1-2-Oscar5 months ago

  Take note of a couple of often-overlooked details.

  "he was immediately tried and found guilty by the media."

  There is no allegation of improper behavior on the part of investigators or government officials. The misconduct can be laid entirely to "the media."

  The Nancy Grace School of Journalism, which has NOTHING to do with honest journalism and EVERYTHING to do with sensationalism, has triumphed once again.

  Laziness and ineptitude (and a callous disregard for personal propriety and accuracy) extends even to the paid staff of this site. Propeller anchor Dakota Smith could not even be bothered to get the submitting member's name right in her brief editorial comment, somehow morphing "bruhaha" into "Bruhu." This extends a pattern of careless reporting by Propeller employees and makes it difficult to give credence to anything they submit.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    JamesMarcus5 months ago

    Oscar, this Overlooked story has none of Nancy Grace's hot-wired hysteria to it. The FBI's initial investigation of David Karnes is certainly defensible--the guy had just sent that (coincidentally) suspicious photo to 100 members of Congress. He was cleared at once. What's being questioned in the story is the way his name was immediately bandied about by the media, before the accusations had been substantiated in any way. As for your other allegations, I don't think the Propeller staff is guilty of "callous disregard for personal propriety and accuracy." But I thank you for pointing out the garbling of bruhaha's name, which has now been corrected.

    Reply
• 0%

  Charlson5 months ago

  I live in Georgia and my university hosted a couple of Olympic events in 1996. I remember the bombing and subsequent media frenzy about Richard Jewell. The man was hounded and vilified by the media. He was later found to be innocent but had a difficult time trying to put his life back in order. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, NBC, and the New York Post was later sued by Jewell for libel. He settled with NBC and the New York Post and the case was still pending against AJC when he died in 2007.

  Reply
• 0%

  cleare5 months ago

  this problem is compounded by the fact that even when disinformation is discredited, viewers/readers don't believe the discreditation and still tend to believe the original report. i recently heard about a psychological report that indicated that the subsequent discreditation actually reinforces the disinformation.

  the media should be very careful about what they report and the facts backing up their stories.

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    GHOSTWHOWALKS5 months ago

    I agree but would include this caveat: Actually doing the work to find out what the truth behind any infraction, or supposed wrong doing would require those writing the story to actually get a reporter off his/her lazy, fat, arse. Instead they seem to do nothing but spout the Governments fallacies, or they're own bias when writing about any event no matter how important, or trivial. We have long since given up the idea that real news should require in depth investigation, and reporting the truth. If a mistake is made then the retraction should be FRONT PAGE news. Just like the falsehood and not buried in the back pages of the newspaper. Truth doesn't sell newspapers, nor attract advertisers.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      splitrch5 months ago

      Yellow Journalism is all about being first and raking in the dough. They don't care who gets hurt. It's just a game to them. If someone starts a war (Spanish American, Iraq II for example) based on misinformation or lies, well that sucks. The good news from a media point of view (Fox comes to mind)is at least there's money to be made from someone else's misery.

      Reply
  • 0%

    PsychoHosebeast5 months ago

    hmmm...

    There are WMD's

    Iraq was responsible for 9/11

    Barack Obama is a Muslim

    We see it every day. People only hear what they want to be the truth, be it scandal, crime, politics or whatever.

    Reply
  • 0%

    bruhaha5 months ago

    What often does happen is, the correction or the story discrediting the original story is buried where most people don't see it.

    Reply
• 0%

  leeksams5 months ago

  thank you for share.

  Reply