Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Actually, it's the previous post that's wrong


Virginia Tech Shooting Media
Originally uploaded by fredfafa.
No, it's the bottom post.

Okay, enough fun.

Seems that Mr. Motl had most of it right yesterday, although he'd identified Seung Hui Cho as a student from Radford. There was a student from Radford involved, not as a shooter, but as a part of the soap opera.

Anyway, Mr. Motl had nearly all right, including the name of the shooter. And this was last night by 1am (okay, that's morning, not night) when I saw his post.

One of the disappointing things about Mr. Motl's blog is that he kept revising the blog posting; you can no longer see what I saw eight hours ago as he has, as he notes on his blog, the "text below was repeatedly updated and it became accurate on Tuesday morning." One of the things I like about blogs is that you can see the progression of posts; going back and changing a post is generally anti-blog, if you ask me.

And, yes, I've gone back and changed posts; there's the post I redacted, but that's only one post in more than a thousand, and I have gone back to clean up spelling and grammar issues. Other than that, I let the posts live as they are. Mostly.

And that is one of the things I like about blogs. In Mr. Motl's case, he ought to have left well enough alone.

So, I give a point to the blogosphere on reporting for this one, and I'm sure there are other blogs out there with accurate or near-accurate information ahead of the mainstream media. In some cases, it is slightly dangerous, not in a gun sort of way, to rely on "single source" information, but in a case like this, bloggers can certainly get away with it easier than the MSM.

2 comments:

  1. tracking back one blog post to another i landed on your entry. i do believe that changing a blog post to the point of actually removing the previous thoughts is somewhat anti-blog, but thinking further, the owner has the right to do whatever to his own blog, esp when pertaining to accuracy of data.

    anyway, my query is that is it really a girlfriend issue that ticked Cho Seung-Hui off?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, we may never know, may we? My wife saw some of the NBC video and her first thought was that he'd been abused as a child; his rants seemed to be directed to someone specific. I think that in his mind, the first woman he killed had some special meaning to him.

    I find it interesting that the recent media bits are portraying him as "off" with an imaginary girlfriend and the like. I know lots of people who say things like that to be funny.

    We will likely never really know what was going on in his head. But this I do know: We have free will. He made the choice to do what he did.

    ReplyDelete