Debunking The Oklahoma Story Later Rather Than Sooner

By: Vaughn Ververs
Topics: Media Issues

Wall Street Journal reporters Ryan Chittum and Joe Hagen dive into the story and speculation surrounding the apparent suicide of Joel Hinrichs III outside the crowded University of Okalahoma football stadium on October 1st. (Hat tip to NRO's Spruiell) The WSJ reporters describe some factors that have caused bloggers and some smaller media outlets to continue to buzz about the incident:

"Adding to community concern was the revelation that two days before he blew himself up, Mr. Hinrichs visited a feed store and inquired about buying ammonium nitrate -- the same chemical Timothy McVeigh put in the bomb he used in 1995 to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, 20 miles to the north. …

To that unsettling set of facts, blogs and local Oklahoma TV stations added several apparent inaccuracies, including: that Mr. Hinrichs was a Muslim and visited the mosque frequently; that he tried to enter the stadium twice but was rebuffed; that he had a one-way airplane ticket to Algeria; that there were nails in the bomb and that Islamic extremist literature was found in his apartment.

None of these claims are true: Mr. Hinrichs's family, university officials and the Federal Bureau of Investigation say Mr. Hinrichs suffered from depression, and the explosion was an isolated event."

Earlier we noted the lack of MSM coverage of this story and commented it was worth airing whatever the facts may be. By putting to rest some of the rumors that have been circulating, the Journal story shows exactly why it was worth looking into. The article notes that the FBI investigation is nearly complete and acknowledges that not all skeptics will be put off by "any disputing of their claims."

But it's a step toward putting much of the conspiracy talk to rest. And an example of how MSM organizations have more to gain in engaging such stories than ignoring them and letting them fester.

5 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by sooner-dave October 15, 2005 3:00 PM EDT: >None of these claims are true: Mr. Hinrichs\'s family, university officials and the Federal Bureau of Investigation say Mr. Hinrichs suffered from depression, and the explosion was an isolated event. While I greatly appreciate WSJ\'s attention to the story, it is the above statement that bothers me more than anything else. Why? Because it isn\'t *investigative reporting.* It is *transcription*. Hinrich\'s dad said *this*; the FBI said *that*; the University said *this*. And *all* of that is taken at absolutely face value, typed into a computer, gets a byline slapped on it, and it becomes a \"news\" story. It neither confirms nor debunks anything. In its own way, this story is the opposite extreme of the paranoid fringe websites that *insist* there was a Jihad-Islamic-terrorist connection. *Neither* is responsible journalism. I can\'t help but believe the late Richard Nixon would have loved this era of journalism; he\'d have finished his second term, the Watergate would just be another hotel, and Woodward and Bernstein would be two more radio hosts on NPR that no one ever heard of. -soonerdave http://thedavechronicles.blogspot.com; Reply to this comment


by newser-2009 October 15, 2005 12:55 PM EDT: You guys are incredible. The WSJ, a bastion of conservative thought, with a pile of reporters who are among the best in the country, says there\'s no there there in Oklahoma. And yet you persist. If you guys are so sure there\'s something missing, you go and show us the way. Really - put up or shut up. And Vaughn, you do us all a disservice by giving a handful of paranoid conspiracy theorists a forum to waste our time. Sure, journalists at times miss the obvious. WMD\'s in Iraq, faulty intelligence... the best example recently has been the lack of equal attention given to missing people who aren\'t blond and white. But you can\'t go around crying the sky is falling everytime people with too much time on their hands make a fuss.; Reply to this comment


by ripclawe1 October 14, 2005 2:59 PM EDT: I agree with Neuro-con,this is a piece that simply repeats what has already been written by various news outlet. The one part that shows how lazy this article is concerns the officer who checked out the license plate and found \"no cause for alarm.\" That is untrue. \"His actions raised the suspicions of an off-duty officer who happened to be in the store. Younger says the officer wrote down Hinrichs\' license tag number and called the police department to check his identity. Younger says the officer returned to duty Thursday evening and was able to identify Hinrichs and notified the bomb squad. Younger says the officer was to give a written report on Monday, but Hinrichs died on Saturday.\" From another article. \"If Hinrichs had not died Saturday night, the Norman officer -- according to Younger -- would have filed the written statement, which would have eventually been submitted to federal authorities.\" How does that spin to \"found no cause for alarm\"; Reply to this comment


by janefinch October 14, 2005 12:32 PM EDT: Perhaps it\'s time to expand your blogroll. The only place this story \"festered\" was in the same tiny part of the blogosphere that seems to regularly captivate your interest on this blog. And if that is going to continue, your blog is going to become a never-ending navel-gazing \"mea culpa\" for not reporting and debunking every speculation that the liberal MSM puppets are involved in a grand conspiracy to keep us from knowing the \"truth\" about terrorism....because there are a lot of those stories in that particular part of the blogosphere. To have reported all of this would have been irresponsible journalism...the same type of journalism that that selfsame tiny part of the blogosphere accuses you of doing during the Katrina coverage.; Reply to this comment


by neuro-con October 14, 2005 3:39 AM EDT: Vaughn -- As I have mentioned previously, I am very grateful for your work on this site, and especially for bringing out the OK bombing story. I am also normally very impressed with the quality of reportage in the WSJ. However, I am quite disappointed with this piece, which merely asserts rather than reports. No independent evidence is adduced, and Boren\'s multiple potential conflicts of interest are not addressed, as the reporters dutifully serve as stenographers for his self-serving spin. Similarly, no independent reporting is done on the relative lack of knowledge that the father has had concerning his son\'s whereabouts, activities, or state of mind over the last two years. Over at Jay Rosen\'s PressThink blog, I have written several times about the lack of basic curiosity that is (ironically) evident in many mainstream reporters. This piece, and your response to it, unfortunately serve to bolster that claim. There is much more to this story than is even hinted at in this piece, and I think you do a disservice to your readers to suggest otherwise.; Reply to this comment