Public Eye
October 10, 2005 3:15 PM

Is Lack Of Big Media Coverage Of Oklahoma Explosion OK?

By
Vaughn Ververs
Topics
Media Issues
Has there been more happening at the University of Oklahoma than hazing and all-nighters? The blogosphere, led by Michelle Malkin, has been chronicling the suspicious explosion at the University of Oklahoma just over a week ago, and wondering why the big media doesn't appear interested.

According to most reports, Joel Hinrichs III was a young man with a history of depression who used a homemade explosive device to commit suicide just 100 yards or so from the school's football stadium, which was filled with over 80,000 people at the time. Officials were quick to call the incident a suicide, but rumors and reports of Hinrichs' attempts to buy large quantities of ammonium nitrate and ties to the Muslim community have raised a lot of questions and the answers thus far are not forthcoming.

The Oklahoma Daily, OU's independent campus paper, lays blame on the FBI today for the confusion:
Remember, the FBI has commandeered this investigation. In doing so and by not telling anyone anything, they are only allowing the events of Oct. 2 to be misinterpreted over and over by people who are firm in believing something that is false and terribly dangerous.

For example, unsubstantiated claims that Hinrichs had been frequenting the Norman mosque have managed to seep onto television news broadcasts even though everyone we have contacted at the mosque says Hinrichs was never seen there.

So who is lying? Inherently, people should perceive the unfounded news broadcasts as the liars, but that doesn't always happen. And even if only one person sees and believes such a report there or online, word of mouth can transmit that "truth" to hundreds or thousands within a matter of days.

Which is why it is undeniably the duty of the FBI to break its unctuous vow of silence and talk to somebody. The longer the feds delay in doing so, the more they become equally responsible for misinformed social reactions as the hacks who started these rumors in the first place.
Many, Malkin included, have wondered where the MSM is on this story. As the Oklahoma Daily editorial notes, local television has covered it and a quick Google search turns up (sometimes conflicting) reports in local and regional newspapers but no major media outlets appear to have picked up the story yet. We asked CBS News national editor Bill Felling, who told us the network is looking into the story. Let's hope so, it's one worth airing, whatever the facts are.

Add a Comment See all 40 Comments
by sooner-dave October 11, 2005 7:24 PM EDT
So with recent events revealing that the NYC Subway plot was a hoax, a sham, a fallacy, can the media stop tripping over itself on this faux issue to report something that *has* actually already *happened*? You know, the guy who *actually* blew himself up with an *actual* bomb, a few hundred feet away from a few thousand *actual* people? Sorry for the sarcasm, all, but the irony of the NYC hoax and the OU bombing can\'t be overlooked. Do your job, media. Investigate and report. -soonerDave http://thedavechronicles.blogspot.com
Reply to this comment
by rickz7 October 11, 2005 1:41 PM EDT
JaneFinch: \"I\'d prefer that the MSM refrain from commenting until there\'s some actual meaning to this story that makes it worthy of more than local coverage.\" One has to wonder if the murdering jihadi terrorist storm that perpetrated 9/11 have been downgraded by the media to \'insurgents\' yet. Also, is there a difference between the word \'tragedy\' (which was used to describe 9/11 in the media from the get-go) and the word \'atrocity\'? Those who died in the recent earthquake in Pakistan died tragically. That is, unless one views Mother nature as being able to commit an atrocity. So my perception of the non-coverage of the OU bomber shows major media bias as a result of any major media coverage being conspicuously absent. But they are our \'betters\', and know what\'s good for us. As if that\'s the premise of good journalism in the first place.
Reply to this comment
by janefinch October 11, 2005 11:45 AM EDT
Lord. In a more recent post, you speculated that \'08 election coverage would make up pine for Aruba girl stories....well the likes of this one appearing on national media at this time does it for me. This latest \"media bias accusation\" comes from the same part of the blogosphere that roundly criticized the media for over-reporting Katrina rumors and approvingly mentions Annie Jacobsen\'s new book on a widely debunked \"terror in the skies\" story. Oh yes and circulated the \"possible missile attack\" story that turned out to be birds. I\'d hardly call this small group credible when it comes to identifying actual terror threats. I\'d prefer that the MSM refrain from commenting until there\'s some actual meaning to this story that makes it worthy of more than local coverage. Obviously these bloggers are finding news coverage on their own that feeds whatever interest they have.
Reply to this comment
by maureen_mm October 11, 2005 10:29 AM EDT
Simply to thank Vaughn Ververs for raising the issue of major media coverage. Or, in this case, lack of it. Putting rumors to rest if they are false is as important as confirming them if they are true. But letting them fly about on a matter as significant as this is irresponsible. And lazy.
Reply to this comment
by buckwheat23 October 11, 2005 9:30 AM EDT
okiedude04 Such a defensive stance to a simple question. I did not assume Islam is a terrorist religion. AND, I never assumed you were on \"the terrorist\'s side\", whatever that means. <<99.99999% of people of Muslims are not terrorists, just like 99.99999% of Christians are.>> Did you really mean this? There is no misinterpretation. Literally, what you wrote is that 99.99999% of Christians ARE terrorists. Get it together, man. Reasonable people, who don\'t normally believe in conspiracy theories, have questions about this. We certainly have more than our share of nutcases here in the US. And this could be a simple misguided guy who just happened to blow himself up, on purpose, outside a stadium where there were 80,000 unsuspecting people. I personally think the situation is a little more complicated than that.
Reply to this comment
by jtdavies3 October 11, 2005 5:22 AM EDT
Okiedude04- Please check out this site: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm#attacks and scroll down to the attacks since September 11.
Reply to this comment
by dfolds October 11, 2005 3:13 AM EDT
Okiedude04, your points are well-taken and I generally agree with them, but your math is in error. If there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, and 99.99999% of them are not terrorists, then there are only about 100 Muslim terrorists in the world. I suggest you are off by 2-3 orders of magnitude. Also, as far as I know the number of Christians actively engaged in terrorist acts in recent years is far fewer than the number of Muslims actively engaging in such acts.
Reply to this comment
by sooner-dave October 11, 2005 2:43 AM EDT
>The second there is evidence supporting a claim that he might be part of something larger, it should get more attention. And it is my contention that MORE than enough such evidence exists such that an investigative report is ENTIRELY justified. How can it possibly be deemed \"sensationalism\" to look into the possiblility that a man who detonated an explosive device 100 yards from a crowd of 85,000 people *might* have had intentions other than mere suicide? -soonerDave http://thedavechronicles.blogspot.com
Reply to this comment
by neuro-con October 11, 2005 2:38 AM EDT
Okiedude -- I would not question your motivations. However, I would call your attention to the following statement from the KOTV report that you yourself cited: The younger Hinrichs lived near an Islamic mosque, had a roommate from Pakistan, had other explosives in his apartment and had tried to buy ammonium nitrate two days before the attack. Moreover, the fact that Hinrichs was not captured on camera trying to enter the stadium is irrelevant, as eyewitnesses report that the only stadium security cameras prior to last week were focused on the box office, not the individual entrance gates. Again, isn\'t this interesting even as a highly unusual suicide coupled with a potential major security lapse?
Reply to this comment
by okiedude04 October 11, 2005 2:34 AM EDT
I have a feeling what I just wrote could be misinterpreted. All I am saying is all religions have extremists that should be brought down. There are just as many radical Muslims are there are radical Christians. Terrorism isn\'t defined by a religion and we should not assume that just because a person belongs to certain religion, they are a terrorist. That is wrong b/c the vast majority of the population believing in any of the major religions do not support the actions of the extremists and radicals.
Reply to this comment
See all 40 Comments
.

Follow Public Eye

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...