Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 938

How Google Will Track You Without Cookies

As users have become both more aware and wary of cookies — the technology that tracks browsing activity for advertising purposes — Google has started experimenting with new tracking methods that don't use cookies. People want more control over the advertising they see and what companies know about them. Cookies can often feel creepy; it can feel like the Internet knows you too well. Example:

Uh, I'm being shown an online ad for the exact pair of glasses I'm currently wearing for the first time...

— Niraj Chokshi (@NirajC) September 17, 2013

Many people, therefore, avoid cookies, either by turning them off or using services that block them. Firefox and Safari block cookies to varying degrees. (Firefox's default setting turns cookies off; Safari blocks them altogether.) And, smartphone browsers and apps don't use cookies. Google, of course, loses revenue when that happens: Fewer people see their relevant ads. Therefore, it's no surprise that the company wants to figure out a different way to serve its ads sans cookies, as USA Today's Alistair Barr reports. But how might that work?

Google did not clarify the exact technology it was working on. "We and others have a number of concepts in this area, but they're all at very early stages," a spokesperson told Barr. One of those "concepts" includes fingerprinting a technique that "allows a web site to look at the characteristics of a computer such as what plugins and software you have installed, the size of the screen, the time zone, fonts and other features of any particular machine," as Forbes's Adam Tanner explains it. Your browser transmits all sorts of information that has nothing to do with cookies. All of those things put together form a unique identity that can be assigned an identifying number and then used just like a cookie. (You can check out how unique your browser is and the kind of information it is sharing over at this Electronic Frontier Foundation site.) 

The benefit of fingerprinting for advertisers is that it's a lot harder to ditch than a cookie, which expires, can be cleared, or blocked entirely. Fingerprinting is device specific. Changing browser or software settings only makes your device more unique and identifiable. The EFF has already raised concerns with the privacy implications of this technique. "Policymakers should start treating fingerprintable records as potentially personally identifiable, and set limits on the durations for which they can be associated with identities and sensitive logs like clickstreams and search terms," concluded the paper "How Unique Is Your Web Browser?"

Fingerprinting can also be combined with other information from third party companies to serve even more relevant ads. For example, one advertising company AdStack works with Rapleaf to match its fingerprinting data with Rapleaf's e-mail address database to gather age, gender, and other information about its potential consumers. "We have data on at least tens of millions of people," AdStack CEO Evan Reiser told Tanner. 

The privacy issues don't concern Resier. "There is a pretty fine line between cool and creepy. And for anything that I think is really great technology I can guarantee there is someone out there who thinks it’s horrible and we shouldn’t do it," he says. But he runs a relatively small company when compared with Google. If and when the king of online ads chooses this new tracking tool, you can bet it will mention the privacy of its users. In fact, it already has: "We believe that technological enhancements can improve users' security while ensuring the web remains economically viable," a Google spokesperson told Barr. See Google cares about your "security." 

       

NFL Raises the Price of Super Bowl Tickets, Then Blames Scalpers

Tickets for MetLife Stadium's best seats at Super Bowl XLVIII will be more than double last year's prices, because scalping of tickets has become so rampant. Oh, and because the game is (almost) in New York City. Oh, and because the game is (almost) in New York. The Wall Street Journal's Matthew Futterman reports that club-level area tickets for February's big game will cost $2,600 each, up from the comparatively paltry $1,250 at the last game in New Orleans. The next highest block of seats will cost  $1,500, up from $950 last year. More than 60 percent of the 77,000 sets will be have a face value over $1,000.

The NFL gave two reasons for the price hike. Executives told the Journal that because the game is in New York, with its sprawling metropolis bursting with well-to-do customers, the game demanded higher prices. That, and it's all our fault for scalping tickets last year.

"We are looking to close the gap between the face value of the ticket and the true value of a ticket to what has become the premier sports and entertainment event," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told the Journal. Tickets to last year's Super Bowl were re-sold at such a premium that the league knows they could raise the cost even higher and people would still pay. Scalpers did the market research for them using the cheapest, worst seats in the stadium that were raffled in a lottery last year: 

At the last Super Bowl, the league held a lottery for $600 tickets in the upper bowl in the corners of the end zones—drawing some 30,000 entries. But of the 500 winners, the NFL said, 60% flipped their tickets within 24 hours. This season, the NFL plans to raffle off 1,000 $500 tickets—but those tickets will be non-transferrable.

So while it's nice that the NFL is making the worst tickets in the stadium cheaper and selling more of them, they're only making it harder for people who didn't enter a lottery that ended in June. For most football fans, scalped tickets are the only way to get into the Super Bowl. There are exactly zero tickets placed on open sale to the general public.

"To get a ticket without a scalper, you’ll need three things: a little luck, a lot of money, and a connection to a team," the New Jersey Star-Ledger's Peggy Malone explains. The NFL keeps 35 percent of Super Bowl tickets for executives, sponsors, and league partners. The rest of the tickets are divided among the teams: the two teams who make it get 35 percent of the tickets, the host team gets 6.2 percent (this year it's split between the Giants and the Jets), and the 28 other teams in the NFL get the rest to give to their executives, players, and sponsors. Then whatever is left over (which is not much) is sold to their season tickets holders, through another lottery.

The result is thousands of tickets that go to people who either didn't pay for them, have no rooting interest, or have a very lucrative incentive to place them on the black market. Meanwhile, all the lower income fans will be left out in the cold come February, priced out of the biggest game of the year, as usual. So if scalping is a problem, the NFL is only making it worse by making the resale market the only outlet for die-hard, but non-connected fans.

Those fan can at least take solace in the fact that the people who do get tickets will literally be left out in the cold, because the game is being played in New Jersey, outdoors, in February. It's going to be freezing out there. Come to think of it, that will probably make even more people want to sell their tickets.

       

Norman Mailer Is Going Digital

Great American Novelist, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, and would-be New York City mayor Norman Mailer is getting a timely touch-up of his oeuvre to entice new young readers, Random House announced earlier today. Eight of his works will be published in e-book format for the first time, and Random House will also publish a new essay collection of Mailer's, as well as repackaged paperbacks.

[image error]“Norman was an American original both on the page and in life,” Random House president Gina Centrello wrote in an e-mail to The New York Times. “Random House and his readers miss him tremendously. It’s wonderful to have this opportunity to relaunch these books for a new generation.”

Though he died in 2007, young people may know the brawling, boozing Brooklyn novelist from any number of pop culture references. He's been mentioned by name in songs by Jay Z and the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and even guest-starred on an episode of Gilmore Girls.

Still, it remains to be seen whether young people know about Mailer because they respect his influential works, including his Pulitzer Prize-winning books The Executioner's Song and The Armies of the Night. Instead, they just might know him for his scandalous travails with six different wives, which probably wouldn't lead people to purchase his books. Random House certainly hopes it's the former, and that they can sell his works digitally, but that won't be answered until 2016, when his backlist books will be fully published. So, as Mailer himself wrote, this story is "To be continued."

(Photo of older Norman Mailer: AP Photo/Lisa Poole)

       

Obama Will Upset Somebody No Matter Who He Picks for Fed Chair

Current Fed chair Ben Bernanke retires in January, and President Obama has to nominate someone to replace him soon. Unfortunately for Obama, since he's waited months to make an announcement, Democrats, economists, and pundits have found reasons to dislike all the potential candidates. No matter who Obama chooses now, he'll be making somebody unhappy.

Most agree that since former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers dropped out of the race, current Fed vice chair Janet Yellen is the clear frontrunner for the job. Women's groups love her (she'd be the first female Fed chair) and Senate Democrats went to bat with Obama over her. At least five Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee indicated that they would not support a Summers candidacy, and at least a third of Senate Democrats sent a letter to Obama in July asking him to nominate Yellen. Plus, 350 economists, including Obama's former Council of Economic Advisers head, Cristina Romer, wrote Obama last week urging him to pick Yellen. So that's what Obama should do, right?

Well, not necessarily. Capital Economics' chief U.S. economist Paul Ashworth wrote Sunday that Obama will look "weak" if he nominates Yellen now. He'd be "kowtowing to the Democrats who have been openly campaigning for her." The New York Times notes it will be awkward for Obama to "circle back" to Yellen, when it was pretty clear he didn't want to nominate her in the first place. And now, in the wake of Summers' dropout, anti-Yellen sentiment is growing. Zach Carter at The Huffington Post argues today that Yellen's record on deregulation in the 1990s isn't much better than Summers'. 

Obama has only named one other possible candidate (besides Timothy Geithner, who's repeatedly said he's not interested). That's Donald Kohn, who used to hold Yellen's position of Fed vice chair. Australian economist Warwick McKibbin, who's worked with both Kohn and Yellen, said Monday that Kohn's a "better fit" for the Fed. Kohn's also apolitical, which might make it easier for him to be confirmed by Republicans and Democrats. Should Obama pick him?

No, probably not. Kohn was Alan Greenspan's righthand man during a lot of his time at the Fed, and many Democrats blame Greenspan for "an antiregulatory stance that encouraged financial excesses that led to crisis," the Times reports. Also, one of Kohn's own employers doesn't think Obama should pick him. Greg Valliere, an analyst at the Potomac Research Group, said Sunday that Obama has "virtually no option" but to nominate Yellen. Kohn is a senior strategist at PRG. 

And of course, many progressive Democrats and women's groups would be angry if Obama misses the chance to nominate a woman — his record of promoting women in his administration hasn't been great.

So good luck to the president! The longer he waits to nominate someone, the more time everyone has to point out the candidates' flaws. 

       

How We Talk About 'Asian Eyes'

It was a meta-moment: Nina Davuluri, who would go on to be the first Indian-American Miss America was asked a question about Julie Chen, a woman who was told she looked "too Asian" to be on a television screen delivering the news some 20 years ago. "I’ve always viewed Miss America as the girl next door. And Miss America is always evolving," Davuluri said during Sunday night's pageant, an answer that helped her win the title of Miss America. I wasn't entirely convinced that a woman discussing plastic surgery in a competition where she is scored on what she looks like in a swimsuit was an actual turning point in the way Asian people and our looks are discussed. 

Minutes later, stories about social media's most awful racists started popping up — calling the Davuluri a terrorist, mixing up her ethnicity, among other things — in short, these awful people believed that this stunning woman wasn't a good representation of American beauty because she wasn't white. Racists who think Davuluri doesn't represent them because she is Indian-American or whatever race, religion, or creed they mistakenly thought Davuluri was, are idiots. The Internet has mostly called out these racists for their myopic views of what it means to be American. 

But in that rampage, and with Davuluri's point in mind, we're still left with this inevitable and unavoidable question: Are Americans OK now that non-white kids are, in fact, the boys and girls next door? And more to the point of Julie Chen: Can we finally kill that irksome idea that someone is "too Asian" to be seen on television?

We cannot turn back time and put the Julie Chen's original face back on television screens to see if that's true. What we can do is look at how people treated that story. And we still have a way to go. One of the stories that covered Chen's admission of her surgery was the feminist site Jezebel.

"Wednesday on The Talk, Julie Chen proved that she's not so different from the numerous women in South Korea famous for trying to 'Americanize' their faces when she revealed that, early on in her career, she got plastic surgery to make her look less Asian," Katie Dries wrote. That parallel is a little disappointing. Chen is Chinese-American journalist who wanted to be on television. She isn't a South Korean woman. That's like using a random white American actress to point out a trend that's going on in some random Western European country like, say, the Netherlands. It's also the treatment of South Korean women that's a little off — white American women get botox, breast implants, facelifts, and collagen in their lips but aren't portrayed as attempting to mimic women of a different country or women of a different race. (Though Dries puts "Americanize" in scare quotes, the article she links to does not use that term.)

But there's also the idea, perhaps more disturbing, that American or "Americanize" is used as a synonym Caucasian or white. That's the way many news outlets have been talking about Chen's surgery on her eyelids. "[P]atients who talk about getting an extra crease in their eyes risk criticism that they are trying to look more white," reported Southern California Public Radio. SF Gate added, "she surgically rearranged her face to look more white." Those reports would have you believe that this magic extra crease in someone's eye is exclusively a Caucasian trait that Asian people must obtain surgery to have. 

What that presumption perpetuates is this idea that Asian people don't like the way they look. What it ignores is that, yes, there are Asian people who are born with the extra crease. I have them (they go away during hay fever season). My sister has them. And Julie Chen's parents have them. So why call those creases American or white and why call eyes without them Asian? This in no way is excusing Chen's actions choice to change her face. But Chen on Monday said her mother and father have the double eyelids, and clarified that one of the reasons people have the surgery is to appear more alert:

Number two: half of us Asians are born with the double-eyelid. My mother was born with it. My father has one lid that was creased, one lid that didn't get its crease until he hit his late teens. I have one sister born with the creases, one sister born without it, so it wasn't denying my heritage.

Now, there are probably some Asians who get that eyelid surgery to consciously look more Caucasian. And there's no doubt that the fashion and beauty industries have a very real and subconscious affect on people. But lumping in everyone in South Korea into that self-hating category is a bit incorrect, when you consider that it isn't an exclusively Caucasian feature. People may just be getting this surgery because they've been told, by an industry dominated by white people, that it looks better — that doesn't necessarily mean they want to look "whiter."

I'd also argue that the trends in those industries are also determined by class and wealth. Tans used to be considered bad because it was an indicator that you are poor (i.e. working in a field all day under the sun). That's until rich people began getting tans on vacation at the beach and on boats. And now, everyone wants tans. Throughout history, class and wealth have determined what's beautiful. And today there is a lot of money being made in Asia, which is slowly changing the fashion and beauty industries.

You'll notice that Asian models like Liu Wen, Fei Fei Sun, and Sui He are dominating magazines, walking in fashion week and signing lucrative deals with many brands. "At the moment, Asian models are getting a fair degree of representation, in part because the industry recognizes the growing economic clout of the Asian market," fashion critic Robin Ghivan wrote during her Reddit AMA. Asian models are not included in the much-talked about "balance diversity" campaign in part of because there's now a growing incentive to showcasing Asian faces. 

"Though we are now used to Indian-American kids dominating spelling bees, apparently it's going to take time before we can accept a young boy in a mariachi outfit singing the national anthem or a dark-skinned Asian-American winning a crown that more often is perched atop blond hair," writes Anna John for NPR. People will have to get used to the idea that American is not a skin color, ethnicity or religion. And part of that is recognizing that these Americans, like Davuluri, believe that too. 

       

Here's How Megyn Kelly Will Fit into Fox News's New Primetime Lineup

Fox News has finally announced how Megyn Kelly will fit into its crowded prime-time lineup: by moving Greta Van Susteren to 7 p.m., moving Sean Hannity to 10 p.m., and giving Hannity's old 9 p.m. timeslot to Kelly. Van Susteren's show will replace Shepard Smith's "The Fox Report," as Smith's role is changing at the news channel: he's now heading up their breaking news team. 

That news might be something of a shock to fans of Van Susteren's "On The Record." When Kelly's promotion to the cable channel's crowded prime time lineup was announced in July, Van Susteren promised that she wasn't going to leave prime time, citing her contract. As it turns out, the only prime timer staying put at the channel is Bill O'Reilly, who keeps his 8 p.m. slot. But according to a statement posted by Van Susteren shortly after the announcement, her time change was her idea, not the network's:

The 7pm opened up...and I saw my opening, spoke to Roger Ailes who makes all the decisions (we had spoken months earlier, too, but only in general terms and never specific), and voila! It happened!

I am extremely grateful to Roger Ailes for letting me and letting us have this new challenge. I don’t intend to let him down and neither does our very smart and hardworking staff of ON THE RECORD...

...Ok, I confess, there is a part of me that does think it will be fun to get home early by 9pm each night! I won’t have to dodge the late night drunks on DC streets…or eat all my meals at the vending machine in the break room (but I may miss those Cheetos and DOTS! but perhaps that can be lunch?)

I am thrilled and the staff is thrilled. I hope you are, too, because you are very important to us. I feel like we all earned it together. It would not have happened without your loyalty to us. You need to join us at 7pm (or yes, DVR us!!) See you at 7pm.

But while Smith's old time slot is no joke and may be exactly what Van Susteren wants, it's not, strictly speaking, "prime time." That's traditionally considered to be 8-11 p.m.. So how will the network frame the move? By simply changing the definition of "prime time." Network chief Roger Ailes said that the shuffle is actually an expansion of what the network considers "prime time," by at least an hour. Here's his statement to Deadline: 

As the network continues to dominate with the top 13 programs in cable news, FOX News already redefined primetime viewing to extend well beyond the antiquated 8-11PM format. We’ve developed a deep bench of engaging and thought-provoking personalities that have grown with FOX News as it has evolved into the most influential and successful cable network in television. These changes will enable the network to continue setting the industry standard for years to come. 

While the shuffle might not be what many were expecting — Van Susteren's held down the 10 p.m. slot for over a decade — Kelly's new time slot itself isn't a total surprise. The network indicated in early August that she was bound for Sean Hannity's old slot. The new schedule goes into effect on October 7. 

       

How Did D.C. Shooter Aaron Alexis Get a Gun and Security Clearance?

In order to carry out his massacre at the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard, Aaron Alexis needed a weapon and access to a secure building. With a record of mental health issues and criminal behavior, how'd he get them? In short: by slipping through a lot of cracks of various sizes.

How he got his gun

Even the NRA agrees that people with mental health problems should not be able to get access to firearms. Shortly after the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, last December, the organization called for increased data collection on those with certain mental conditions.

It seems clear, 24 hours after the fact, that Alexis suffered from some mental health issues. As the AP reported Tuesday, Alexis, a Navy veteran, began treatment for "serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder," beginning last month. By then, he'd already purchased the shotgun that he used in Monday's attack.

When firearm dealers in states submit an application for a background check to the FBI, mental health is one of the considerations the agency applies for approval. The guideline is specific: the applicant cannot have been "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution." (Only one percent of rejected applications failed due to this restriction.) Alexis was neither at the time of his application. Not that it necessarily mattered; as The Washington Post reported, the Virginia Tech shooter failed the first part of that test, but since state data wasn't shared with the federal government, he passed a background check. The General Accounting Office calculated that the federal database includes about 2.3 million fewer records than it should.

Alexis' pattern of mental health issues overlaps with his criminal history. In 2004, Alexis was arrested in Seattle after an incident in which he shot out the tires of a car, according to the Seattle Police Department.

Following his arrest, Alexis told detectives he perceived he had been “mocked” by construction workers the morning of the incident and said they had “disrespected him.” Alexis also claimed he had an anger-fueled “blackout,” and could not remember firing his gun at the victims’ vehicle until an hour after the incident.

Alexis received misdemeanor charges of property damage and discharge of a firearm. In 2010, he was arrested again, this time for apparently accidentally firing a bullet into his neighbor's apartment. No charges were filed. The FBI background check only bars those "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" from receiving approval.

The FBI also blocks those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military from getting background check approval. Alexis, despite repeatedly being cited for infractions while he was in the military, was honorably discharged.

That background check was the hardest part of Alexis' gun purchase. He needed to show two forms of ID to the dealer in Lorton, Virginia, and pay five dollars — three more than a state resident would have to pay. The NRA outlines the process for acquiring a firearm, but the Wall Street Journal reported the most important detail.

The law allows a buyer to purchase a long gun – which is a rifle or shotgun – without being a resident of the state where the firearm is bought.

So Alexis got his shotgun. According to the most recent reports, he then took at least one handgun from a law enforcement official at the Navy Yard.

How he got his clearance

In order to carry out his attack, Alexis needed to gain access to the secure Navy Yard building where it occurred. That wasn't a problem, since he had security clearance allowing him to do so. So how'd he get that?

The Post has a thorough look at a process that may be nearly as porous as the FBI background check system.

[I]nvestigators are evaluating whether an individual is trustworthy — a subjective standard that leaves plenty of room for interpretation. [Office of Personnel Management, which generally reviews security applications,] says that negative information, including arrests, can be mitigated by “recency, seriousness [and] relevance to the position and duties.” Investigators have, on appeal, granted clearances to people with histories of alcoholism, drug use, criminal conduct and significant, delinquent debts.

What's more, Alexis had someone on his side: the firm for which he was consulting. Talking Points Memo looked at The Experts, the company that hired Alexis to do IT work at the Navy Yard. Its CEO, Thomas Hoshko, spoke with the Wall Street Journal, as TPM explains.

Hoshko told the Journal that Alexis had a secret security clearance from 2007 and that it had recently been re-approved. But we also know that the crush of federal contracting that has led to dramatically reduced standards for these background checks and checks themselves are now routinely outsourced to still other contractors.

In retrospect of course, Hoshko wishes he hadn't hired Alexis. He suggested to the Post that he wasn't aware of the killer's criminal record or mental health problems. "If I can find this out just by doing a Google search," he told the paper, "that is sad." According to one report, Alexis' most recent background check this summer included only a traffic violation.

The Guardian's national security reporter Spencer Ackerman put the broader problem more bluntly.

It's almost like defense contractors care much more about keeping access to lucrative contracts than adequately vetting their employees

— Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) September 17, 2013

It's almost like we expect vetting to catch every potential loose cannon AND we blanch at intrusive vetting

— Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) September 17, 2013

Or: The Experts had little incentive to keep Alexis from getting his clearance renewed, nor, particularly, did the government. So Alexis got his access.

       

Brazil's President Cancels U.S. Visit Thanks to NSA Snooping

Brazilian newspaper O Globo reported Tuesday that president Dilma Rousseff was so miffed over the National Security Agency snooping into her communications that she decided to cancel her trip to the White House on October 23. 

According to Reuters, President Obama spent twenty minutes on the phone with Rousseff last night but she still refused to come. Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed Tuesday afternoon that, yes, Rousseff will no longer be visiting Washington. Obama agrees this is the right thing to do because "the relationship is so important," Carney told reporters Tuesday. The White House also released this statement: 

The President has said that he understands and regrets the concerns disclosures of alleged U.S. intelligence activities have generated in Brazil and made clear that he is committed to working together with President Rousseff and her government in diplomatic channels to move beyond this issue as a source of tension in our bilateral relationship. 

The White House hopes they can reschedule. But you know how these things can go.

This is one of the biggest diplomatic backlashes the White House has seen (not involving Russia) since the NSA scandal broke. Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald recently revealed Rousseff's communications were being intercepted by the NSA. "This is completely outside the standard of confidence expected of a strategic partnership, as the U.S. and Brazil have,'' he told O Globo at the time. In July, Greenwald revealed the NSA has also spied on Brazilian civilian communications for more than a decade.

As soon as Rousseff's cancellation was confirmed, the White House announced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit September 30. Since the NSA shares much of its intelligence with Israel, they probably still have a lot to talk about.

       

Conspiracy Theorists Are Already Calling the Navy Yard Shooting a 'False Flag'

Before we knew the names of the victims, the motive behind the attack, or even how many shooters there were, some conspiracy theorists thought they figured out what had happened at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning.

[image error]
MORE FROM NATIONAL JOURNAL Putin and Bush's Favorite PR Firm Bugged: Obama's Roach Problem Amos Wants Marines Down to 174,000

Alex Jones, the antigovernment broadcaster who reaches millions every day through his syndicated radio show and Infowars Web empire, speculated the shooting may be a "false flag" operation intended to distract Americans from Syria, as well as the anniversary of the Benghazi attack and the simmering IRS scandal.

"You've got all the other scandals, so this is a great way to change the subject," Jones said on his radio show Monday morning, which is broadcast on more than 80 stations across the country. "It's a way to divert everyone."

For Jones, the shooting may be the latest in a long line of "false flag" operations, in which the government allegedly stages phony terror attacks to gin up popular support for disarming Americans or taking away their civil liberties. He confidently labeled the Boston Marathon bombing a hoax within hours of the explosion, but was more circumspect Monday.

"It may be real crazies, but look at the timing. Obama rolling out a national campaign against guns yesterday, and then this happens," he said.

For conspiracy theorists, the "why" for such tragedies is always the same. "We've all got to give up our rights because it's so scary. It's all about mind control," Jones explained.

And he's not alone. On conspiracy message boards and forums, users who see themselves as citizen journalists have cut together YouTube videos that they claim show possible "actors" at the scene. One video shows a near-victim laughing with a local TV reporter when the two didn't realize they were on air. "One would think at a moment such as this, a reporter and a 'near victim' wouldn't be laughing, especially when they didn't realize they'd be caught on camera," the conspiracy website Before It's News explained.

On the subReddit dedicated to conspiracy theories, one user wrote, "Thought the Navy Yard shooting was just a shooting until I saw this CNN tweet: "CNN: THE ATF HAS SENT SAME SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM THAT HELPED TAKE DOWN BOSTON BOMBING SUSPECT IN BOAT." Others murmured in agreement.

After Sandy Hook, Boston, Aruroa, and 9/11, it's hardly surprising that conspiracy theories emerge around such tragic incidents, but the speed is always startling.

       

The Media Was Always Bad at Reporting Breaking News, a Brief History

Poor Twitter. Once again, the platform is getting all the blame for the spread of misinformation during today's breaking news event, when, really, the media facilitated the spread of false reports way before Twitter existed. In fact, all the previous incarnations of news dissemination — radio, TV, and paper — have distributed erroneous facts during major events. That's the nature of breaking news: It's messy, complicated, and confusing. That doesn't excuse reporters for tweeting erroneous details. But, let's blame the right thing here: It's not Twitter, it's reporters. 

Here's a look back at three major news events of the last century or so.

The Time TV Got It Wrong: 9/11 Edition

Back in 2001, the old TV media guard got plenty of details wrong in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. Hypervocal has a rundown of some significant mess-ups, many of which came via the TV news media. For example, here's NBC news reporting that a bomb went off at the Pentagon:

At the time the smoke and acrid smell led D.C.-based reporter Jim Miklaszewski to believe the reports. Of course, now we know that an airplane had crashed into the side of the Pentagon. Similarly, later in the day, CNN reported an explosion on Capitol Hill, which turned out to be false. Still, Hill staffers had to evacuate the building. 

The Time Radio Got it Wrong: JFK Assassination Edition

Dallas Radio station KLIF went back and forth in its reporting of John F. Kennedy's assassination, declaring him both in critical condition and dead throughout the broadcast. At one point, a congressman says he saw Kennedy's lips moving at a normal rate of speed en route to hospital; later, they have another report saying that he arrived at the hospital dead. Around 53:30 the radio report says that "rumors ran rampant" that Vice President Lyndon Johnson had also been shot. In addition, NBC radio made the first unofficial announcement of Kennedy's death without an official report, pulling from the Associate Press. 

According to ReelRadio.com, "an erroneous report of a secret service agent is aired" at 1:38 p.m. CST. Around 55 minutes and 22 seconds into the broadcast the newscaster says: "There is also indication that more than one man is involved in the attack," which certainly sounds like the confusion over suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings. 

[image error]The Time Newspapers Got It Wrong: Titanic Edition 

"Efforts are being made to elucidate certain mysterious circumstances attending the loss of the Titanic, chief among which are the bogus dispatches last Monday stating that the liner was proceeding under her own steam to Halifax," began an April 1912 article in The New York Times, again via Hypervocal. Fake telegraphs circulated suggesting that the Titanic had not indeed sunk. The situation sounds a lot like what happens today, just substitute "telegraphists" for tweeters: "Unfortunately, America is full of amateur wireless telegraphists who have put up their own installations. Some of these men are held for the bogus messages," The Times wrote. As we now know, the Titanic sunk. 

Mistakes have happened in breaking news reporting for decades. While Twitter might spread these false bits of information faster than a telegraph, it also has the benefit of correcting those errors faster than ever before.