Blogs can be great and wonderful things. They can get inside information and quality analysis out quickly, in many cases fast than any news agency. The problem with unrelenting speed is that sometimes, the information is wrong. The case in point is an apparent suicide at the University of Oklahoma and all the speculation surrounding it.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran an article in today’s edition discussing the unfortunate case of the late Joel Henry Hinrichs III. One of the biggest problems with this case has been the amount of uncorroborated information and speculation floating around about the case.
On October 1st, young Mr. Hinrichs elected to tragically end his life. He was killed in an explosion some 100 yards or so away from the 85,000 screaming Sooners, attending a football game at the University of Oklahoma football stadium. Local authorities and the FBI have been investigating the incident and have released some bits of information regarding the case.
The facts must be mentioned to be able to discuss the rumors and the WSJ does that clearly. They pointed out Hinrichs had a Pakistani roommate. They lived one block from the only mosque in Norman, one visited by Zacarias Moussaoui. A couple of days before, he purchases some ammonium nitrate from a local feed store. That was the primary chemical used by Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City.
The blogs got this information and went to work. The WSJ mentioned the “Little Green Footballs” blog’s entry, “Jihad at the University of Oklahoma.” They also mentioned political commentator Michelle Malkin and Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation had blog entries regarding this matter too. These blogs were suggesting this was legitimate, attempted terrorist attack.
The FBI maintains it was nothing of the sort. Hinrich was merely a young man with some real depression issue and he committed suicide. Bloggers and some local television stations continue to hammer away at the possibility of this being a terrorist attack. The television stations are stick by their stories and the bloggers are sticking by the speculation.
The problem with speculation, particularly in a case like this, is that some of the bloggers seem to be floating on rumor. It’s one thing to question authority and information, but when questioning, specifically in regard to specific people, it’s wise to make sure the information is accurate.
Bloggers can be great sources of citizen journalism but they can also be propaganda tools of speculative misinformation. This applies to all bloggers, not just the handful of political ones. It’s ok to speculate but make sure the speculation on an understanding of the facts. And in cases like the one of Mr. Hinrich, it might be well advised to check some of one’s information before the typing starts.
John Stith is a staff writer for Murdok covering technology and business.
