The Internet was just crazy this week

I believe Denis Leary put it best when he said on Twitter, “Remember - if you see a Sharknado, stay in your car and do not follow it. Unless you live in Florida.”

It’s subtle but it ties in two of the top trending items on social media for the week — the George Zimmerman trial and the SyFy original movie, Sharknado. Add in the controversy surrounding Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s face gracing the cover of Rolling Stone, and you pretty much have the entirety of the Internet for the week.

Let’s start with the Zimmerman trial. I can’t say I was shocked when I heard Saturday night that he was acquitted in the death of Trayvon Martin, but I was appalled. That said, I’m much less inclined to believe that it was some sort of racist conspiracy to let Zimmerman get out of jail free as that it was a case of justice and the law not always being the same thing.

I wasn’t there. You weren’t there. And to be honest, neither of us even watched much of the trial, right? But that sure doesn’t seem to stop people from complaining (or rejoicing) about it online.

There’s only two people that know exactly what happened … and one of them is dead. So only Zimmerman knows how it all went down. But the puzzle was pieced together by a number of witnesses and those witnesses talked to the jury. The jury, in turn, was instructed exactly what the law is and concluded that the charges didn’t fit the situation.

Do I think the ruling was just? I do not. Do I think it was correct — according to the law? I regretfully believe that it was.

Meanwhile in Los Angeles, sharks got sucked out of the ocean by a huge tornado and dropped into the streets to wreak terror on the good citizens therein. At least that was the premise of Sharknado, the movie that took Twitter by storm (shoutout to Clip Smith for the inspiration for the bad pun) last Thursday.

Almost everyone I knew — and everyone I didn’t know — seemed to be watching the low-budget b-grade movie live and discussing it on the 140-character social media site. In fact, 318,232 tweets relating to Sharknado were sent during the premiere broadcast.

I had to catch it off the DVR, missing out on the sarcastic live play-by-play on Twitter. I watched it Saturday morning, expecting it to be horribly awesome. Or awesomely horrible. Let’s just say I was half right.

Rumors are swirling that a sequel is planned which will drop sharks on New York City. Two words: I’m in.

Meanwhile, in Boston, people are incredibly agitated that Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wasn’t made to look like a mass murderer on the cover of Rolling Stone. From what I can gather the image is too complimentary and thus “glorifies” Tsarnaev.

Anybody remember when Time ran a bad (and doctored) photo of O.J. Simpson? They took a lot of heat for it — and rightfully so. It lacked journalistic integrity.

It’s not the media’s job to make people look good — or bad. Could they have specifically looked for a photo that made him look like a terrorist? Maybe. Would it have been ethical? No.

Look, Rolling Stone is in the magazine-selling business. Why use a bad photo when you have a good one that you can use? Does that mean they’re making him a rock star? No. It means they’re selling magazines.

I’m sorry that not all terrorists are scarred and wearing turbans and eye patches. But misguided people’s perceptions of what a terrorist looks like should not be Rolling Stone’s concern.

And that … is what happened on the Internet this week.

Scott Leffler likes sharks and justice but not terrorism. He really likes Twitter. Find him there @scottleffler.

We need to be careful where we get our news

I had a love-hate relationship with my profession last week.

It started with frustration over an AP photo from the Boston Marathon bombing. The photo in question showed a man in a wheelchair being wheeled away from the site of the bombing. The caption for the photo didn’t give the man’s name and that frustrated me to no end.

I thought it was very distasteful to show a closeup of a man severely injured and not take the time to get the man’s name. I was concerned for his wellbeing and had no way to find out if he was OK or not. I was fearful of using a photo of someone that may have ended up dying in the blast. I thought to do so would be classless. So I didn’t use it. In fact, none of the papers in this newsgroup used the photo — I’m happy to report.

It continued with all of the erroneous reports from — primarily — TV news saying there were more bombs than there were ... and that the suspects were caught ... and the use of photos of people that may be the suspects. One such case had the New York Post showing front-page photos of two men they said were suspects in the case. As it turns out, they were not.

The race to be first, it would seem, has replaced the need to be right for many news organizations. Just as the desire for sensationalism has replaced any semblance of decorum among many news organizations.

Another example of news-gone-awry was the alleged release of “the suspects” names via a Boston police scanner — followed by several Twitter posts with those names — followed by thousands of retweets of those posts. Within minutes the names of two men unconnected to the case went from a police scanner in Boston to the entirety of the internet due to the rapid response of social media.

Many news organizations picked up on that and used Twitter as a source of information, saying that the details came from Boston police, which Boston PD denies.

The timing was odd as just a week prior a local bank was robbed and the name of the suspect went out over the police scanner. Later that evening we got a press release from the Niagara County Sheriff’s Office about the robbery but they didn’t list the name of the suspect that had gone out over the scanner so we didn’t print it. The decision was made that it was better to be a day late on getting this person’s name out than to have the wrong name published and tarnish someone’s reputation without cause.

As it turns out, the name that went over the scanner was the same as the name of the woman they eventually arrested. But I would still make that same decision again. From my perspective, being right outweighs being first. Every time.

The 24-hour news cycle, coupled with social media has made a mess of the news.

Facebook and Twitter are certainly useful means of communication. But they’re unfiltered and should be taken with a proverbial grain of salt. They shouldn’t be used as sources for media. And they shouldn’t be confused with being vetted media. To be clear, I’m not saying that having access to the most up-to-date news is a bad thing. Not at all. But I am saying that we need to be careful to distinguish between news and supposition.

And by “we” I mean readers and reporters alike. If the mainstream media starts acting like a bunch of bloggers, that’s how we’re all going to end up.

Scott Leffler considers himself a writer with a full-time job editing. He also blogs, Facebooks, Instagrams and tweets @scottleffler.

It’s a global world in which we live

Last week I lamented our provincialism — our small-mindedness, if you will.

Monday reminded us that no matter how small we might want our world to be, the world itself is shrinking all the time.

Whenever something happens in other parts of the world — and particularly other parts of the country — my first thought turns to “who do I know there?” For better or worse, my immediate concern is for those I know and love. It used to be focused primarily on natural disasters — earthquakes, power outages, blizzards and whatnot. More and more lately, it has to do with man-made disasters — terrorist plots.

So when details started to emerge Monday about bombs going off in Boston, my mental rolodex starting thinking of those I know in and around Boston — and hoping that they’re okay. I immediately checked Facebook and saw that my friends in Boston had posted that they were alright. That set my mind at ease and shifted it to my next thought — to those who weren’t okay — the dead and injured.

Like Columbine and Waco and Sandy Hook, Monday’s tragedy was the kind that tugs at heartstrings no matter any personal attachment — due to the scope and the human stories that are bound to come out into the light.

To start with, every media organization across the country will try to find a way to personalize the story — starting with notes on those we knew who were running the marathon ... and people who had lived here — wherever your here may be — but have since moved to Boston.

Barring any tragic details from “our own” emerging from Boston, we’ll focus on personal accounts of the injured and dead — to the point where we think we really did know these people.

With last week’s passing of Annette Funicello and Margaret Thatcher, I noted to myself that as I get older “celebrity” deaths seem more personal. They strike me in a way in which they didn’t when I was younger. I’ve grown to “know” these people.

Over the next several days and weeks, we’ll grow to “know” the victims of Monday’s horrible attacks. And our world will shrink just a little bit more.

Last week, I said we were all Buffalonians. This week, we’re all from Boston.

Thoughts and prayers.

Follow Scott Leffler on twitter @scottleffler.