Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Boston bombings: news, truth and academics

Last week’s Boston Marathon bombings and the manhunt that followed showed all too starkly the challenges government agencies faced as they responded to the attack and sought to identify the perpetrators…

Misinformation reported by a media beast hungry for any news on the Boston bombing had the potential to compromise the subsequent manhunt. EPA/Matt Campbell

Last week’s Boston Marathon bombings and the manhunt that followed showed all too starkly the challenges government agencies faced as they responded to the attack and sought to identify the perpetrators.

Not only were they dealing with unknown perpetrators on the run but also the mainstream media, an academic and pundit commentariat, and citizen cyber sleuths at large — who at times seemed as if they were in a race with responding agencies to identify the perpetrators and their motivations.

This second-guessing of authorities caused significant amounts of misinformation to be generated, and the mistaken identification of innocent people as suspects.

In an effort to break news first, several high-profile media networks appeared to rely heavily on source reporting. Although the media’s use of sources to pre-empt officialdom and be first to report information is not new, in counter terrorism response situations it can be dangerous, not least ethically questionable. Indeed it is fortunate some erroneous media announcements made in relation to the Boston incident and on the basis of source reporting did not have more serious implications for public safety and the integrity of the response operation.

Some media made scant if any mention that information their sources were providing had not come from official statements, and as such, the veracity of the sources’ information was unclear because it was not authorised for official release.

In response situations, agencies can be slow to release official statements because information must be verified and vetted, and public safety and operational security implications assessed prior to it being made public.

As a result, with limited official information available some in media turn to “experts” for comment and validation of source reporting. Sometimes this expert commentary is provided by academics.

Other times it is think tank pundits or private consultants with varying levels of experience and expertise. All featured in the widespread and often blanket media coverage of the Boston bombings.

But as the mistake-ridden coverage showed there are significant consequences arising from the practice of relying on unauthorised source information.

Indeed, academics should give pause to consider our role in this practice, particularly since in the absence of official information our role in media seems to increasingly be used as a means of legitimising source information.

In unfolding situations such as Boston – when official information can be in limited supply – those of us in the academic community should be cautious our commentary is not being sought or used to legitimate unconfirmed and unvetted information, which could not only be potentially wrong, but also harmful.

While it may appear more a media problem, it nonetheless remains an issue for academia because the race to be first with the news also appears to have led to a race to be first to explain or comment on news events. Within hours of the Boston bombings opinion pieces by members of the academic community had been written, despite officials having released very few confirmed details.

Although it is tempting to dismiss this as cases of individual academics seeking to be first past the post, universities too are becoming more corporate: seeking media exposure to help build their brand of expertise because this helps generate funding, numbers and better resource allocation. As a result, academic staff can feel pressured to build a media profile and go out and give comment.

One possible solution to this – which might afford academics protection from such pressure – is to develop something akin to a code of conduct. Having one in place might help them deal with pressure from media and from their academic institutions to provide comment. It would certainly help academics avoid being placed in situations where they are asked to provide expert comment on unverified and unauthorised information provided to media by sources of whom they have no knowledge.

Maintaining public confidence during a counter terrorism response is essential to public safety and the maintenance of law and order.

If the government reported all information it received in haste and by doing so reported erroneous information, such confidence would be undermined. Academics rushing to comment and offering up speculation (particularly if based on unverified and potentially unfounded reporting) can undermine public confidence in academia too.

Of course, it is not always that easy. Often academics do attempt to address and hose down speculation by providing background context that might discount source reporting or other questionable information, but then find their comments are presented as confirmation of reporting, or as additional speculation.

Here too having a code of conduct might assist in dealing with these circumstances and ensuring commentary we do choose to provide is appropriately and correctly contextualised.

We would all to do well to remember that our role is not just observational.

Academics providing commentary are a part of the media, and the way in which an incident is reported upon and understood can fundamentally shape its outcome.

This is all the more reason why we should consistently seek to ensure our commentary does not contribute to the spread of misinformation, and endeavour to find ways to improve our commentary practices.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

10 Comments sorted by

  1. Comment removed by moderator.

  2. James Jenkin

    EFL Teacher Trainer

    Do we really need a code of conduct for academics commenting on current events?

    As we've seen, rash and dodgy commentary is shown up for what it is, and reputations suffer. Surely that's enough of a stick.

    I say give us more crazy speculation. You never know, someone may just come up with something lateral and interesting that more considered observers may miss. And we normal people will sort the sensible from the ridiculous. Trust us.

    report
    1. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to James Jenkin

      Agree wholeheartedly, James. Some of the speculation around this incident that goes on in the pages of this site is just amazing. It is aided and abetted by those who attempt to hijack the conversation to sprout their hobby-horses. Fortunately, as you say, their looney tunes hyperbole is easy to spot and serves only to destroy their own credibility. Following their supplied links really heightens the effect. Cheers :)

      report
    2. Joseph Bernard

      Director

      In reply to James Jenkin

      "Do we really need a code of conduct for academics commenting on current events?"

      Would rather that academic's air their views publicly and uncensored because they ultimately help shape / influence the views of the young minds that join our ranks.. So it is probably very important that we have a chance to offer our own perspective in forums such as this at the formative stage rather than wait and discover down the track that something was terribly wrong.

      We all benefit from intelligent discussions…

      Read more
  3. Mark Smith

    logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

    "We would all to do well to remember that our role is not just observational.

    Academics providing commentary ....can fundamentally shape its outcome.

    This is all the more reason why we should consistently seek to ensure our commentary does not contribute to the spread of misinformation, and endeavour to find ways to improve our commentary practices."

    Experts are responsible for defining 'normative' not only for what happens but why it happens within a philosophical construct which currently…

    Read more
  4. James Hill

    Industrial Designer

    To the extent that academics may be "specialists" in the sense that George Bernard Shaw intended in his statement "The specialist is, in the truest sense, an idiot" then this idea that academics should somehow be excluded from a voice or a vote in general affairs would only serve to make them more "idiotic" than they might already be.
    Knowledge certainly has become more divided and specialised in the century since Shaw made his observation and it follows that the value of that specialised knowledge…

    Read more
  5. Peter Dawson

    Gap Decade

    There are far too many close prior links of the accused to intelligence agencies and the American establishment to be comfortable with the official story as it stands. The uncle of the accused was married for 3 or 4 years to the daughter of a CIA agent who was known for being involved in high level CIA shenanigans. The elder brother was married to a girl who was the grandaughter of a Skull & Bones member. The S&B grandfather is an entrepreneur in the energy industry, and the uncle has a high paying job in the oil industry.

    The way every other news story about the case uses words to the effect that "American security sources anonymously revealed the information to [us]" doesn't inspire confidence in the official story either. The quoted example was from an AP story today alleging that the mother had telephone conversations about jihad with one of her sons, which were taped by the Russians.

    Rule number one for academics should be "don't be gullible."

    report
  6. Pat Moore

    gardener

    Rule number two..."don't toe the party line"? Governments aren't value-free zones. Universities are politicised institutions too especially since the massive makeover of the Australian bodypolitic in the four decades of infiltration by the political ideology of economic rationalism and the correctly fitting straightjacket required of a warfaring/conscripted? 'coalition of the willing' partner.

    Would enforcing codes of conduct on necessarily politicized topics like this instance though serve…

    Read more
  7. Geoff Taylor

    Consultant

    There is apparently a film called Four Lions which was described in a recent weekend films blurb as being about a plan for explosions to disrupt a Marathon.
    One has to hope that unlike the film Pelham 123 which is thought to have led to a real train hijack, Four Lions was not the inspiration for the recent tragedy in Boston.

    report