Wouldn't "disinfo" refer to deliberate lies of some kind? Are you just saying they did a poor job, or that they have covered something up? Any examples?
Yes, i do have some examples and I wish someone can explain them.
CNN showed a "breaking news" clip of supposedly live action of police running into a school. But the school in question was not Sandy Hook - it was St Rose of Lima (image 1)
H Wayne Carver II was a deskbound forensic guy on $299,000 per year, and at a press conference claimed he didn't know how many boys and girls were shot. He said a long rifle was used, and confirmed it, and when a media guy said, "but the long rifle was found in the car?" he was told that wasn't true. But a film exists of the officers taking a rifle out of the car, in the dark.
But it was later reported by Pete Williams, justice correspondent at NBC, that feds assured him no rifle was used in the shooting. Carver didn't seem to know anything at all except the kids were shot everywhere, lots of times, and were wearing kid stuff. We surely already knew all that. Two months later, nobody has any further details.
Media shots of the ambulances show them locked in by other cars. And they seem to be at the fire station, and not the school. Which is odd, because if you have 26 dead or wounded, you'd probably want the triage set up very near the victims. There were no wounded, but the ambulances wouldn't have known that. Signs of life might have been present in the kids, but medical staff were actually turned away. And those that did get there couldn't have got their ambulances out if they'd wanted to. Anyway, put that down to confusion.
The media didn't help themselves by posting pictures of Victoria Soto with a man giving a weird finger sign who later turned out to be a relative of Nick Phelps' wife, Jennifer Greenberg!
The media also didn't help themselves showing footage of grieving parents looking deliriously happy and well rested. Which would be very odd for people who had lost a child the previous day or so and hadn't been allowed to see the body.
Only recently, the media didn't help themselves passing on to us Arizona police's picture of a shooter who injured a congresswoman, which was later shown to be a photoshop job of Glenn Beck. Don't they know their own presenters? Maybe for good reasons they didn't want to show us the real person. But Glenn Beck? Come on! They seem to be making a joke out of it, which I'm sure isn't the right thing to do.
The media didn't help themselves releasing pictures of the Greenberg family pretending to be parents or relatives of Sandy Hook victims. Below the picture of the imaginary Phelps family is the real family in Florida.
They could have showed us the real families, if they had wanted to give genuine information, or, just said,
"we don't want to intrude". Which would have been very understandable, and nobody would have blamed them. But hiring actors was a bad idea, because now people think the whole shooting was phoney, which I'm sure it was not. They weren't even good actors.
The idea of actors is good, and is surely to get a clear message across. But if they make the story more confusing, it becomes a bad idea! Especially if the whole lot of them turn up in Florida! The boy to the right of Victoria Soto's brother is Jennifer Greenberg's son; trying not to smile when interviewed about the Soto victim shows he's an inexperienced actor. I'm sure Soto's real family were not impressed by this at all.
All this furore over Sandy Hook is because the story doesn't make sense. Tell us the real story and clear everything up, and nobody can then complain.
Gene Rosen is, I'm sorry to say, mistaken with his bus story. How can children escape a massacre, when even fire officers can't get into the school, and then board a bus, who then drives them PAST the fire station to a complete stranger's house (Gene didn't know any of the kids) and drops them off, then drives away as if nothing is wrong, in the morning of a school day? Where is the bus driver? One thing is sure: she will never be found. Gene then listens to kids talking about the shooting for half an hour! Why didn't he call the police straight away?
The media didn't help themselves releasing a picture of victim Allison Wyatt, 6, on the right of the split photo. But the picture is not Wyatt. It is stolen from Cathy Gaubert's flickr page. And even worse, nobody from Sandy Hook seemed to notice, which is odd if they all knew the girl. Cathy has never even been to Sandy Hook! She has no idea who stole her child's picture.
Cathy tried for ten days to get it removed, because her daughter was alive and well. Eventually the media replaced it with a photo of someone else, I don't know who it really was, but without any explanation. And now Cathy's got this problem of her daughter's photo imprinted on the web as a victim.
Why didn't the press report on who gave them the picture? Why wouldn't they have gone to the family in the first place for a correct picture? Why didn't anyone from Sandy Hook notice for over a week, seeing the pictures every day - and why has Cathy never been given any explanation? That's a story worth reporting on, surely? If only to explain who put the picture on there, and committed the crime. As Policeman Vance said, disseminating wrong info about this is a crime. So where is the investigation?
And most people know that Dawn Hochsprung, killed in the shooting, later gave an interview to the Newtown Bee, describing how it happened. I don't know how she did it, but then again, we have the media to thank for this.
When a tragedy like this happens, it's very important for it to be investigated properly. We were told Lanza broke a window to get in. But the firechiefs, when they arrived, also had to break a window to get in. If Lanza can get in through one broken window, couldn't the fire guys have got in through there? Or was it replaced in the intervening half an hour? These details are where the media slip up because, of course, people get confused when a story doesn't make any sense.
As for the Emilie Parker case, yes, of course it's confusing because the girls look the same. Of these 6 photos, 3 were taken before the shooting, and 3 afterwards.
picture 1 is the earliest, and 3 and 5 were given to us by the media direct from the family. 2, 4, and 6 were taken directly after the shooting. Of course there is confusion among people who watch this on TV. Who can blame them? The media need to have a clear story. What happened to Lanza? His death records show he died on the 13th. Is this a different Lanza? None of it makes any sense, and nobody can now access updated information to explain all the bizarre coincidences. And so people, of course, jump to conclusions.
If the media is going to report on something, let them report on it thoroughly and later explain all the errors they made. If they want to hire actors, it's not a problem - this is acceptable for TV. But they should explain that they are just actors, and then nobody can blame them later. This only makes sense.
And it didn't help matters that DHS's HSEEP were conducting a shooter in school drill just up the road. So people put two and two together and figure maybe the whole thing was a drill? This is fine if it's a drill - people need to be prepared. But they should explain that, and it would be understood and accepted by everyone. If, as it no doubt was, a real tragedy, then the inconsistencies need to be addressed. Otherwise, the next time the media present us with something, people are likely to disbelieve it. And that's what's happening now.
Bear in mind the ONLY information people have about this is from the media. We don't
have any other sources! Therefore, if there is a confused and garbled story without any clear facts even now, two months later, who can we blame? Only the media.