Folks, during the ongoing debate about what happened in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, someone brought up the fact that American journalists had reported something that turned out to be completely false.

A blogger at AL.com kept track of the various reports that members of the American media made during the day of the shooting.

Here is one of those reports:



Now, how many things in the above-quote report were wrong?

1. Ryan Lanza is the shooter - Wrong.
2. Ryan Lanza's younger brother being questioned by police - Wrong.
3. Nancy Lanza works at the school - Wrong.
4. Ryan Lanza's girlfriend and another friend are missing - Wrong.

Who was the source of these false claims?
The Associated Press wouldn't say.

Earlier that day, Fox News reported that "a source" said that Adam Lanza's father had been found dead. The identity of the "source" was not given. Well, the father wasn't dead. He was away from his home when local law officers went there to investigate.

I have noticed a common denominator among all of the false reports that were made about the Connecticut shooting. They came from anonymous sources.

The reporters could have waited until a person authorized to give information did so, but reporters were more concerned about being the first to report something than they were about reporting accurate information.

I don't care which news network is doing it. If a reporter is citing an anonymous source, then why should I believe it?

I am not saying that all reporting by news networks is wrong. I just don't automatically believe whatever an anonymous source says.

the problem here is there is no punitive measures to prevent rabid journalism. Any journalist presenting lies as facts deserves termination from their job and jail time.

It is not that they are lies. It is that they are rumors based on false conclusions jumped to by people who have partial information.

By the way, I sent a letter of criticism to one of the networks that put out false information based on anonymous sources.