Boston Marathon Massacre.... really? come on now...

So I was watching the news yesterday at the laundromat and all of a sudden I hear "THE BOSTON MARATHON MASSACRE" I kid you not, thats what they called it, its almost as if they are turning real life into movies... I have read that somewhere on a thread before bout how they are bored so they create real life movies with real life situations, and I think this is one of there cruel jokes. Its sickening that they even decided to call it that.

here is the definition of massacre

Massacre- the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.

only 3 people died!!! this was not a massacre!!!

Move this to rant if you like but I felt this belonged here.

okay you win how about "attempted massacre"? what's the point?

It was freaking horrific!

Was the columbine school shooting considered a massacre? Just wondering


and I hear bombing not massacre I hear "The boston marathon bombing!"

reply to post by howmuch4another


sure it was an attempted massacre but they didn't call it that, it seriously felt like it was a movie about to begin playing. The news is taking this way out of proportion.

reply to post by Casualboy100


here this is where i got my definition from

Massacre

Actually, the technical definition for mass murder by the FBI is when 4 people are killed.

I have to say I disagree with your assessment in this case...when more than 100 people are injured in such a manner, I tend to think it qualifies as a massacre. We were quite fortunate that the death toll was not much, much higher. We can thank the first responders/bystanders that rushed to save people for this in my opinion.

I agree, the coverage is overblown. Who wouldn't have seen this coming though? "Boston Cowardly Attack" doesn't have quite the same ring as making it sound like a mini-9/11 or something.

If it bleeds, it leads. That's the news motto these days. If it bleeds by more than one person, it's a tragedy of national proportion. If it bleeds by gunshot, it's a preventable tragedy requiring new laws immediately! If if bleeds by homemade bomb? Well, now we have a massacre. See? They even say so.

I really do recall a time when the News organizations reported it instead or trying to outright redefine it or make more of it themselves.

reply to post by neobludragon

So is it considered a massacre or what you didn't really answer my question.

reply to post by lpowell0627


Ok, but why didn't they be like "The world trade center Massacre" you see where it seems strange? Now THAT was a massacre. Yet the news never once considered it one.

Are we really arguing about whether it was a massacre or not?

reply to post by Casualboy100


I don't really know too much bout the colombine shootings, just that 2 kids shot up a school.

I heard the same thing last night, on CBS world news.
I have to say, I didn't like it either. It is the media whores way of trying to garner the most attention with shock value.

I think what happened was absolutely horrific and think there is enough attention being paid without the media's need for extremism.

reply to post by neobludragon


Here is the (Merriam-Webster) definition of the word (massacre)...

" The act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty " www.merriam-webster.com...

3 people killed in Boston is "a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty."

To me 3 people is a group...so I really think the word (massacre) is appropriate. Also too those 3 people were part of a large group of people assembled at Boston; and many in that large crowd were injured...that was a (massacre).

reply to post by neobludragon


i have to agree with you, a "massacre" it was not. as much as i have a lot of sympathy for the victims and their families that term just blows it WAY out of proportion. it was a horrendous thing to do, but in honesty in regards to a lot of events it was nothing more than a pin prick. but i am sure that the government will use this event to it's fullest potential to further their goals, so since massacre makes it sound so much worse than it was, it helps them out tremendously as people will respond with a lot more anger than if they were to call it an inept attack. just toss in scary wording to hype up the terror potential of what was in all honest a minor event as these things go.

reply to post by caladonea


Ok but still, they didn't call world trade center bombing a massacre, any other events that people were killed innocently in a group. Its almost as if they were trying to re-create the original boston massacre.

Boston Massacre
A clash between British troops and townspeople in Boston in 1770, before the Revolutionary War. The British fired into a crowd that was threatening them, killing five, including Crispus Attucks. The soldiers had been sent to help the government maintain order and were resented even before this incident. The killings increased the colonists' inclination toward revolution.

I don't know its just weird that no other place of killing when on the news was ever called a massacre til this one.

It's the media, could you expect anything less? Sensationalism sells, haven't you heard?

3 people killed is now a massacre, because the TV said so. It was a tragic event, but not a massacre.

I wish the news also used 'massacre' to describe every bombing and drone attack in the Middle East where innocent civilians were murdered.

I guess I'd call this a massacre as well, although the death toll could have been a lot higher. Thankfully it wasn't, but there were a lot of injuries as well.

I agree with you. As if "Boston Bombing" isn't enough of an extraordinary headline...

It seems like news agencies are working hard to find the most extreme article title they can find. Don't get me wrong it was a total tragedy, but I find there is no need for extra sensational titles in news articles.

It seems a little trivial to be ranting about article titles at a time like this, but I feel it has to be said. Hey news people, we want FACTS, not an over sensationalized title or article! Stop trying to scare the zombies out there... They might as well use a headline like:

"OMG OMG!!1!1!! BOSTON NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST MASSACRE OF THE CENTURY AAAHHH!!"

i would put calling it a massacre as to be an act of stupid journalism.
someone overshoot with putting this term.

but aren't we already used to it ?
bigger, larger, better, supreme ...blah blah blah

i can just remember how it felt to hear 'America at War' on 9/11. war on what ?

This is just our nation, we totally lost normal measures here and then. Everything has to be supercheap, supercool, super-whatever
Other nations call us being ... superficial ... another 'SUPER' with a complete different meaning.

superficial journalism ... and all the quality is gone

Haha That would definetly make the event noticed