IF YOUR MOTHER SAYS SHE LOVES YOU, CHECK IT OUT.

I commented on the differences between what is said and what is reported following an article in the Wall Street Journal by reporters Ryan Chittum and Joe Hagan. The article was about the tendency of the Blogosphere to disseminate conspiracy theories and used the recent suicide of a student - Joel Hinrichs - at the University of Oklahoma, as a hook for that story.

What made the explosion at the University of Oklahoma suspicious were the method, place and prior actions of Mr. Hinrichs.

First, the method: a bomb. Other than suicide bombers, bombs are rarely – if ever - the means chosen by people who wish to commit suicide. I have searched Google for previous suicides by bomb and, except for the Hinrichs suicide, suicide bombers all seem to be Jihads of one type or another.

Second, the place: near a packed football stadium. Suicides are generally committed in private. People setting off bombs near crowds raise suspicion that there was a motive other than simply suicide.

Third: the student had inquired about buying ammonium nitrate a few days prior to the explosion. Ammonium nitrate was the primary ingredient in the bomb created by Timothy McVeigh when he blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

The authorities seem to have dismissed these questions by insisting that the Hinrichs suicide was simply that of a depressed student who ended it all. Despite these assurances, we are told that the next football game at the University of Oklahoma will be accompanied by increased security. If Hinrichs had shot himself in his room, would the University have increased security at football games?

But back to our story. Chittum and Hagan quoted several bloggers about their continuing skepticism of the official explanation. The bloggers responded by claiming that the Wall Street Journal reporters had asked leading questions and took their comments out of context.

Three bloggers responded: Michelle Malkin, Jason Smith and John Hinderaker. Following the controversy, I e-mailed Ryan Chittum with a copy of the essay on my web site.

He graciously responded by stating that “I would dispute those characterizations, especially the ones made about me and Joe on those Web sites."

Gratified by his reply, I asked him: “ Just which characterizations are you disputing ... and why? Were you misquoted or taken out of context?

If you have a case to make to bloggers, why not use me as a third party intermediary? “

He responded: “I really appreciate the offer, but I'm going to have to decline. I'm confident my reputation and the Journal's will survive the mischaracterizations, and I don't want to get involved in any silly pissing match. I think most people on their own intuitively follow the old journalism axiom: Consider your source. There's always a minority who just believe what they want to believe, and that's fine.

Speaking of sources --on the newspaper being like talking to the 20th guy in telephone--I spoke directly with multiple sources with direct knowledge of the situation, some of whom I could not name because of the sensitivity of their positions. We have rules against hearsay here and we guard our credibility jealously and are serious about getting stories right.
We, of course, get things wrong sometimes, but when we do we try to quickly correct them. “


What can we learn from this?

First, we learn that the MSM is beginning to take the blogosphere seriously – as part of the opinion shaping medium.

Second, they seem to hold bloggers in contempt.

Third, they still believe they have the superior position regarding believability. They have not internalized the damage that has been done to their credibility by Jason Blair, Dan Rather, exploding fuel tanks, and their ever more obvious political bias. In an example of unintended consequences, the MSM’s adversarial attitude in its attacks on authority figures has ricocheted. If it is OK to question the truthfulness of the President, what makes it not OK to question the truthfulness or thoroughness of the press?

Therefore, when Chittum asks me to believe that his explanation of the suicide-by-bomb is correct; he is asking me to take two things on faith. First, that he is telling the whole truth about his unnamed sources and, second, that his sources had indisputable proof that Hinrichs only meant to end his own life. These assurances, in the absence of public proof, are not good enough, especially since the University is increasing security at football games. Are they afraid of another depressed student taking his own life via bomb, or do they see the possibility that Hinrichs may not be a simple suicide.

We report, you decide.

His assurances about his credibility and getting it right are no longer good enough. Remember the old saying by Emerson: “The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons?”

The blogosphere can be as egregiously wrong as the MSM, but it has an advantage that the print and broadcast media does not have: we can link to original sources. We can append corrections to our original stories, not bury them in the corrections section. In other words, the blogosphere is transparent in a way that the MSM is not and – in the case of the “dead tree media” is technologically incapable of ever becoming.

I predict that Ryan Chittum will someday have his own blog. Until then, I believe in the old newsman’s bromide: “if your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

UPDATE: While this story has disappeared from the media's radar screens, they having concluded that the bomb explosion was a suicide, Jason Smith informs us that Hinrichs lived in a university-owned property popular with Islamic students because it is adjacent to the local mosque. This does not prove anything; nothing to see here ... move along. In fact if you make anothing of this you are probably a conspiracy theorists and bigot. I got it, Ryan.