MetaFilter posts tagged with sensationalism

Smells like Pulitzer. Or something.

docgonzo — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:58:49 -0800

"Where's my pitbull?" In which our 'hero', Carl Monday, CLEVELAND'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, attends the sentencing of Mike Cooper, an "unemployed porn site user", caught pleasuring himself at a local library. (Metafilter passim; via Deadspin's full coverage of Carl Monday.)

Getting caught pulling the goalie

docgonzo — Fri, 26 May 2006 07:27:15 -0800

This [youtube] is what happens when an "unemployed porn site user" and CARL MONDAY, CLEVELAND'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER meet at a local library. [via the always excellent Deadspin]

moth — Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:41:48 -0800

some atrocious reporting from the usually responsible UK Guardian Just an example of bad conclusions from little information. The sensationalist title of this story, reprinted from the Observer, is, "Anthrax attacks' 'work of neo-Nazis,'" (which seems like bad grammar to boot - why the apostrophe after "attacks"?) and then it begins, "Neo-Nazi extremists within the US are behind the deadly wave of anthrax attacks against America, according to latest briefings from the security services and Justice Department."

But if you read the actual article, here's the closest thing they have to a quote or face supporting this:

'We've been zeroing in on a number of hate groups, especially one on the West Coast,' a source at the Justice Department told The Observer yesterday. 'We've certainly not discounted the possibility that they may be involved.'

Is it just me, or is this drawing a lot out of a little, and just confusing the situation?