Mass shooting in San Bernandino

[Swordfish]

Yep.  And I guarantee this won't change the media narrative at all going forward either.  There will be no correction, and the shooters will still be referred to as being publicly supportive of jihad, and if only our feckless government had read their Facebook page, the whole thing could have been stopped. Same as how the shooter in Oregon was still said to be targeting Christians even after more witness reports showed that he actually wasn't.

What difference does it make whether their motivation was private pr public?

Is private extremism somehow less dangerous that 'social media' extremism?

Other than a general concern about accuracy, which is valid, i am struggling to see why this distinction is material here.

 

[The guy from the Vale]

Public extremism is extremism that, in our brave new surveillance world, security agencies are supposed to find. 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

What difference does it make whether their motivation was private pr public?

Is private extremism somehow less dangerous that 'social media' extremism?

Other than a general concern about accuracy, which is valid, i am struggling to see why this distinction is material here.

 

The difference comes from the idea that these signs should have been found before she was allowed to enter the country.  The implication is that our current adjudication system is flawed and therefore no Muslim should be allowed into the US, just in case.

However, since they were private communications, there was nothing for the adjudicators to find.

[Shryke]

What difference does it make whether their motivation was private pr public?

Is private extremism somehow less dangerous that 'social media' extremism?

Other than a general concern about accuracy, which is valid, i am struggling to see why this distinction is material here.

It would certainly change the context and reasoning behind their attacks and what they meant them to do.

It also changes how they could have been stopped and thus what holes one can claim need to be plugged.

[Swordfish]

The difference comes from the idea that these signs should have been found before she was allowed to enter the country.  The implication is that our current adjudication system is flawed and therefore no Muslim should be allowed into the US, just in case.

However, since they were private communications, there was nothing for the adjudicators to find.

I see...  OK.  i hadn't seen those arguments being made.

 

[DanteGabriel]

Unsurprisingly, the Washington Post has a pretty good item on this fuckup by the New York Times.

This is a gigantic deal. The New York Times, after all, didn’t merely report that Malik had made public Facebook postings about her feelings about jihad; it wrapped that contention into what reads as a condemnation of the U.S. anti-terrorism apparatus. The thrust of the story comes through with trademarked New York Times precision in its lede: “Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad. She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/12/17/new-york-times-reviewing-reporting-on-san-bernardino-assailants/

 

And look there, it seems that the inaccurate social media story the Times spread was used by Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz during the Republican debate.

Competing news organizations published different takes on Malik’s online activities. CNN’s Evan Perez and Dana Ford reported on Monday that Malik’s postings were “obscured” and sent under “strict privacy settings” that would have thwarted screening. That report appears bulletproof at this point, though it raises one question: If CNN itself had reported that authorities couldn’t access these messages, why didn’t Tuesday night’s GOP debate moderator, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, correct candidates Sen. Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina when they criticized the government for having failed to uncover the postings before the attack? “For heaven’s sakes, every parent in America is checking social media and every employer is as well, but our government can’t do it,” said Fiorina, in a remark that appears to have derived straight from the New York Times.

 

“It’s not a lack of competence that is preventing the Obama administration from stopping these attacks. It is political correctness. We didn’t monitor the Facebook posting of the female San Bernardino terrorist because the Obama DHS thought it would be inappropriate. She made a public call to jihad, and they didn’t target it.”

That quote came from Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) at Tuesday’s CNN debate in Las Vegas.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

 

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones has traced the erroneous reporting to a story from the New York Times. For at least two of the three authors of the story, this is the second time in a few months they've "garbled" a sensitive story:

I would like to nominate Apuzzo and Schmidt for the Judith Miller Useful Idiots in Pseudo-Journalistic Stenography Award. 

Judith Miller Useful Idiots in Pseudo-Journalistic Stenography Award-  a brilliant idea, and I can't think of a more deserving namesake for a useful idiot award than Judith Miller!