im being glib, but there are some serious ethical journalism questions that deserve to be brought up. First of all, does every step of the investigation need to be broadcast? Is this reality tv (in internet form) or actual journalism? Can rampant vigilantism on the internet be stopped? Can real journalism prevail in the face of the instant-gratification ppl can get on reddit? Do people want real journalism?
The redditors are basically using the scorched-earth method of journalism, with no regard to who they accuse. Theyre causing considerably more harm than help, which is typical of vigilantism.
An interesting question is this: why is having reporters in vietnam a good thing while redditors following every move of the bombing investigation a bad thing (considered so by some of us at least)? (please dont answer that with a smug, poorly thought-out answer. sometimes its better to think things through and not just go straight to whipping out the epeen)
What? The difference is that redditors don't claim to be journalists, so why would anyone put any weight in their accusations? No one was lynched by redditors (or in danger of being lynched), so let's not call this vigilantism.
Anyone who thinks that Salah Barhoun's life wasn't in danger for a few hours there just hasn't thought things through. This country is littered with small people with guns who would love to assassinate the newest boogeyman.
In any case, no number of intermediaries would absolve "the subreddit" of responsibility if something went tragically wrong as result of their actions. Mob psychology and the diffusion of responsibility certainly makes people feel like it would.
Sunil Tripathi's name will forever be linked to the Boston Marathon bombing for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, causing irreparable damage to his memory and untold grief to those who knew him on top of the already crushing grief of his being missing (and perhaps, it now seems, dead).