Again, please stop inventing things that no-one has said.

I'm not making anything up. I'm just following other people's logic. Or are you suggesting that what is happening on here is actually racism? That somehow the lives of Americans are of less value than those in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria? For the life of me I don't understand the objection to the coverage of a terrorist act, no matter where it happens. That it happens at the end of a marathon in which people are running to raise money for good causes seems to me to be just as sick as it happening between two opposing factions within the same religion.

Indeed. It was one of his better moments.

Without 911 though, it would have been status quo and i am not talking about the rock group.Bit difficult to give it the ''you are either with us or against us'' whilst allowing American dollars to kill Brits

All of the above are excellent arguments for covering the incident, for spending more time on it than on other stories, and for covering it as the first story on each bulletin. I still don't see a need for the total blanket coverage that we had last night and this morning, however. As tragic and unusual as the events were, there were other important things happening that should have been covered as well.



I wouldn't have minded so much if they had something new to say throughout that time, but most of the coverage was simply a repeat of the same few seconds of video footage and extended interviews with literally anyone they could get hold of, whether they had anything relevant to say or not. Of course the events should receive a lot of coverage, but not to the almost total exclusion of everything else. Is [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/three-children-found-dead-in-lowestoft-after-mother-dies-from-fall-8574031.htmlthis[/url, for example, any less tragic than the events in Boston?

Who has objected to coverage?

The objection that I have seen of that kind has been simply about the extent of the coverage, not the existence of coverage.



The lack of logic in your racism accusation is utterly risible.

"One of the first things" ... but not until after 9/11 eh?

The only one.

Before 9/11 actually.

That's called splitting hairs.

Wow. No, it's not. The two things are materially different. If you think we pay too much tax, does that mean you oppose all taxation?

You have no idea of the nationalities of all the victims, but let that pass. Rather than join in your "argument", such as it is, can I instead just invite you to quote any person who has said it really isn't worth reporting.



Take your time.

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.