Really? link please.

That's more the nature of the press today. It's 24 hour coverage, but - and here's the key bit - based on the assumption that no-one is actually watching for 24 hours. The headlines are therefore repeated ad nauseam, with the same footage and interviews rolled out continuously.

Such dramatic footage, a major sporting event attacked, an uncommon event with as many (possibly global) implications and possible reactions will of course be the lead story for a day or two. Even if it turns out to be a purely domestic attack it's big news. There are also local concerns with the London Marathon this weekend.

The deaths of the three children and their pregnant mother have been given very heavy coverage from what I've seen.

Even as I type, a major earthquake in Iran is starting to take some of the headlines, as are the arrangements for Thatcher's funeral. The world is moving on not even 24 hours from the event.

They might assume that no one watches for 24 hours, but I doubt they assume that no one watches for a whole hour. As I said, I've no objection to it being headline news - it was always going to be - but I cannot see a need for it to be the only thing reported for hours on end. I don't even object to, say, Barack Obama's speech being replayed a few times. But when they're interviewing a member of the public and asking what the saw, and the answer is 'not a lot' (I'm paraphrasing), it's time to report something else and come back to that story later. The whole thing was about 30% actual news and 70% padding.

[url=http://scriptonitedaily.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/boston-bombing-hoax-reports-racial-assaults-and-hope/This is a good piece.[/url

Interesting, that doesn't correspond with my memory of events.
When did he stop it? ... NORAID, that is.

<EDIT > I have just done a quick Google and straight away found a BBC article where a guy was asking for Bush to stop NORAID ... the date of that article was 25 September 2001, or as the Americans would say, 09/25 ... which is a couple of weeks after 09/11.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/16/northernireland.usaHere's another article, from your beloved Guardian[/url, dated 16 May 2001.

I did make one mistake though: it was the Real IRA that Bush added to the list. The IRA had declared a ceasefire by that time which obviously meant they weren't in any way involved in violence at all. Obviously.

All fine and dandy but we were talking about when Bush stopped NORAID funding, you said before 09/11 ...so when did it happen?
Just that I'm wondering why the BBC reported (two weeks after 9/11) that someone was asking him to stop that funding.

Have they decided who's to blame yet?

Must still be looking for a fully intact Saudi Arabian passport.

Obviously it was the CIA hoping to raise sympathy for the cause of marathon runners.

are people allowed to celebrate these deaths or is that just reserved for an old ladys death!!
also are people allowed to be hypocritical and express their sympathy for these deaths but celebrate an old ladys death!!
we need some clarification here.

We do. How many of the marathon runners or spectators who were killed or injured were divisive politicians for example?

How many have been murdered/maimed as opposed to dying of natural causes in a hotel in London?

Life is all about lessons, yesterday the people of Boston learned when you donate your money to NORAID and Clan na Gael, this is the sort of stuff they spent it on.

I think you're the one needing clarification. On the difference between an 8 year old boy being killed by a bomb and an 87 year old woman who many believe blighted their lives while not giving a rats about it dying naturally at the end of a long life.

If you think expressing sympathy for the former and saying good riddance to the latter is hypocritical you are living on the wrong planet.

If you want to celebrate an innocent young lad getting killed, go for I say

.

Presumably as a supporter of the said old lady your grief appears to have affected your logic.

Race related it turns out

The whole situation has been crazy today. Kept looking in on a rolling report on the Guardian web site and it sounded like something out of a Hollywood action film. Car chases, shoot outs the works.

Well that is the nature of marathons.

Considering the following....

Ailina Tsarnaev tells reporters she was "shocked" that her brothers were implicated in the bombing and said she had not spoken to them in years, as her family was unhappy she married a man who was not a Muslim.

I have been subject to death threats for having the temerity to go out with a female who was affirmed as a Muslim.

The second bomber has just been found and captured alive

What am I considering?

I asked a question, did i say i was personally celebrating anyones death,unlike you and loads of others in the "ding dong " thread!!!

I didnt notice any comeback on the "person " who expressed his regret that the IRA SCUM didnt get maggie in brighton( in the ding dong thread).Did nt they murder children too, but thats forgotten because they nearly got maggie!!!!!!
now thats hypocrosy.

I'm with you Nish, Maggie made unpopular decisions, that's it, her crime is being 'unpopular' a life is a life is a life.

Cornish is an hypocrite. He reserves his his bile for a certain type of human being.

Do I really need to explain this to you?

I will if you want me to.