Post editor on “Bag Men” cover: “We did not identify them as suspects”

[DonViejo]

After printing a photo of two young men suggesting they were suspects, the New York Post's editor defends it
BY DANIEL D'ADDARIO

The New York Post’s editor, Col Allan, has issued a statement to Salon about today’s cover story. That story stated that two men were suspects in the bombing of the Boston Marathon, and was illustrated by a photo reportedly circulated by the FBI of two dark-skinned young men. Though the headline, “Bag Men,” simultaneously pointed out that the young men carried bags and used slang for criminals at once, Allan points out that the story did not state whether or not the two young men were the two suspects (they are not) or how many photos had been circulated by the FBI.

Col Allan’s statement reads:

We stand by our story. The image was emailed to law enforcement agencies yesterday afternoon seeking information about these men, as our story reported. We did not identify them as suspects.

Update, 2:28 p.m.: The New York Post has published a story indicating that the two young men are not suspects:

Investigators have now cleared the two men whose pictures were circulated last night in an email among law enforcement officials, sources told The Post today.

Authorities determined neither had any information or role in Monday’s attacks at the Boston Marathon.

Full article:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/18/new_york_post_editor_on_bag_men_cover_we_did_not_identify_them_as_suspects/

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Those two young men should file a lawsuit against the NY Post. n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. k&r

[DinahMoeHum]

3. It's Cover-Your-Ass time again at the NY Post. . .

. . .having been skewered earlier in the week by The Onion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022687094

http://www.theonion.com/articles/this-is-a-tragedydoes-it-really-matter-exactly-how,32076/?ref=auto

[AngryOldDem]

4. I don't believe that is a defense to libel.

Maybe a lawyer can explain if it is or isn't.

If they are clearly identifiable, then they are "suspects."

This is why I have such a problem anymore with media identifying people before they are formally charged with crimes. When I worked at a newspaper way back in the Ice Age, it was policy to never ID anyone unless formal charges were filed. Now you see names (and sometimes addresses) in the paper, and on television you see full-on shots of people who have merely been arrested. Just because you're arrested doesn't mean a damn thing, but once your face is out there...

Just one more example of how far U.S. media have fallen. I wonder how much trouble CNN caused with the investigation by jumping to the conclusion that someone had been arrested?

[longship]

5. No, you only put their faces on your fucking front page.

And then implied that the law enforcement people were looking for them.

What the fuck could go wrong with that?

Maybe the NYPost ought to find out in the most financially costly of terms.