The limited information regarding Joel Henry Hinrichs III's death has caused a surge of unfounded claims on the Internet and even by certain "legitimate" news agencies.
In the cyber-age, citizens (especially younger ones, like students) post their thoughts and opinions on blogs and Web pages that are read across the country.
It is usually easy to discern blogs and other extremely personal and unchecked sites from legitimate news sources like newspaper or news station Web pages.
But certain sites (that have obvious socio-political agendas) have been referenced as fact by individuals who have written us, posted on our Web site and spread this "information" throughout the World Wide Web.
And that is an example of how, sometimes, the Internet can act as a carcinogen of truth; especially if readers don't consume this media critically.
If a "news story" does not name its sources, raise an eyebrow. If that story sites "very credible sources" as sources, raise the other one.
"Experienced law enforcement officials say," should be considered just as unreliable online as "A believable OU student said, 'I think there's probably some sort of conspiracy,'" should be if it were the lead source for a controversial story in The Daily.
When FBI investigations come to a close, we will all know a lot more about what happened last weekend. Once again, however, The Daily feels it is not only struggling each day to find truth in this situation, but also beginning to battle the proliferation of information from media that have surrendered the search for truth in an effort to be inflammatory or to draw better ratings.
In short, consider the medium, and if it raises an eyebrow, turn somewhere else for your information.hello there & you too
