I think that may be one of the biggest problems that we have, we're apparently letting the 'investigative journalists' put the pieces together for us. Basically that is letting the media present the 'facts' as they see fit to the jury pool that is now fully tainted with media speculation masquerading as fact.
I wasn't speaking of lawyers, nor was I even speaking of someone in the MSM, I was speaking of a blogger who may fancy themselves a reporter, but who is not legitimized by sponsorship from a credible media outlet, in my opinion. I am sure that there are more than one of these bloggers out there, trying to make it big by re-wording stories that they picked up in the MSM, or worse, fabricating things that did not exist out of things like facial expressions during a press conference. I recall reading a story where the headline was that there was new information in the LB case, but then the article in question contained no new information, just a suggestion that something was gleaned from a previous blog that said 'investigative journalist' had written, prompting one to visit their previous blog, (garnishing double the hits in the meantime, very clever), and then when one visits the older blog post, we find out that the gleaning came from the blogger literally not trusting the look on the face of a detective. If someone can tell me how that that is real investigative reporting, I would be interested to hear. To me that is exploitation. It is exploiting the Bosma family for financial profit in the guise of being a public service.
It is the same way that that poor boat rental operator was exploited, in my opinion, and it frankly makes me wonder if people like Josie got the same ultimatum as the boat tour operator, basically, 'talk to us or we will run with the story we made up anyway'. How many media outlets ran the the 'boat covered in blood' story, and managed to milk it out into a two day paper selling frenzy? And how many ran this related story?
http://www.manitoulin.ca/2013/06/05...onal-media-police-in-assisting-millard-probe/
This is what is wrong with letting 'investigative journalists' put the pieces together for us, especially if they are being paid on a contingency scale. They know that the gory, unbelievable, horrifying and outrageous stories sell far better than the mundane truth might, despite both possibly containing information. So, since they know what makes them more money, which ones are they more likely to produce and reproduce? Many of the articles that we consider reliable information do not even have a name or date attributed to them when we look back on them now, where is the credibility?
Just because DM is accused of killing TB, does not give reporters the right to dig into the personal tragedies of everyone who has ever expired in his presence. Being a possible witness to a fatal accident and many years later having a family member commit suicide does not put someone in any closer proximity to a lot of untimely death, in my opinion, certainly not enough to use it to weigh against them when they later are accused of a heinous crime, to make them look more guilty. We should perhaps wait and see what the actual evidence holds
before we drag any more innocent families into this media feeding frenzy for profit, in my opinion. What if be of your loved ones died in an accident and years later, one of the first people on the scene happen to be caught up in a horrific crime, would you want their memory connected with that later crime, forever, instead of having it focused on their own lives and accomplishments?
