Hacker News Reader

Comment by sjs382 | Hacker News Reader

Remember the Breaking News Consumer's Handbook from WNYC's On The Media: https://www.wnyc.org/story/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-...

  1. In the immediate aftermath, news outlets will get it wrong.
  2. Don't trust anonymous sources.
  3. Don't trust stories that cite another news outlet as the source of the information.
  4. There's almost never a second shooter.
  5. Pay attention to the language the media uses.
    • “We are getting reports”… could mean anything.
    • “We are seeking confirmation”… means they don’t have it.
    • “[News outlet] has learned”… means it has a scoop or is going out on limb.
  6. Look for news outlets close to the incident.
  7. Compare multiple sources.
  8. Big news brings out the fakers. And photoshoppers.
  9. Beware reflexive retweeting. Some of this is on you.

View on HN

This isn't limited to the immediate aftermath either. I recently learned that almost everything I thought I knew about the Columbine shooting was actually not true. The narrative of a shooting quickly takes on a life of its own.

Would you mind elaborating a little on the Columbine shooting and where to look for trustworthy reconstruction of the event?

Sure, let me first say though that there's so much misinformation surrounding that particular event that I'm not really willing to 100% trust anything at this point. I'm always ready to find out what I think I know about the event is actually wrong. That being said here were the major things I used to think were true that I don't anymore:

- The shooters were not in The Trenchcoat Mafia (TCM). TCM was a thing that some of their classmates used to refer to themselves. Dylan and Eric were never closely associated with it. The coats they wore during the shooting weren't even trenchcoats, they were dusters.

- They weren't outcasts, and the shooting was revenge against the popular kids. They weren't the most popular kids in school either but that had fairly normal social lives, went to parties on the weekend. If I recall correctly prom had been a few weeks before the shooting and both had gone, with dates.

- The infamous exchange in which they asked a classmate if she believed in god and then shot her when she responded "yes" never happened.

This source seems pretty good: https://www.policeone.com/school-violence/articles/1228405-T...

I first found out about it from this podcast: http://www.socialmatter.net/2017/05/12/myth-20th-century-epi...

Someone told me that some of the victims ended up being shot by the police. Based on your research is that true or it's another one of those rumors?

I've never seen anything mentioning that so it seems dubious to me. But it looks like there was a motion filed in court claiming this [0]. Not sure what ever came of it, but I assumed Google would turn up more if it had been confirmed.

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-columbine-student-killed...

We complain a lot about the quality of modern news reporting, but I think a large part of it is that we are just more aware now due to the prevalence of the internet and huge numbers of sources. Back in the old days, there was plenty of misinformation, but we just didn't get as worked up about it. Our standards now are higher and we tear apart even small inaccuracies.

Theres a book called Columbine by Dave Cullen that came out a few years ago. He also has some articles you can find online about the shooting, all very well researched as far as I can tell.

The narrative right after the shooting was that 2 loner goth kids did a horrible thing to get revenge on their bullies.

However they had a circle of friends, and were more focused on becoming infamous than killing anyone in particular. It wasn't an impulsive attack; they planned for a very long time and wanted to outdo Timothy McVeigh

This aligns with what I recall of the post-Columbine fallout - having grown up some of my childhood within a couple miles of Columbine. Thanks for the book reference, admittedly I’ve not followed up much on the event given the area impact, but it definitely seems like a worthwhile read all this time later.

The same is true for almost every subject intended to generate massive response, and less is more for news crews - less actual details allows them to push required/desired narrative to the listening crowd. Sometimes it's borderline disgusting (

It seems to me that your post is the only one that isn’t trying to capitalize on this for political points, or rampant speculation.

10. Dont reflexively call the shooter "nerd" or "geek" or "introverted genius" just because he/she is asshole and somehow related to something tech.

Wouldn't this be covered by #9 ?

not when its' Fox News screeching about it.

apologies. I don't watch the news and had no context.

Possibly. It is pet peeve of mine, so I could not resist. The chance that someone get called either of those things goes up the moment he is caught hacking, stealing, shooting the school or otherwise acting like an asshole. It has no relation to his actual personality nor skills nor intelligence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com