I am Facebook friends with Ryan Lanza

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/i_am_facebook_friends_with_ryan_lanza/

by evo_9 • 14 years ago

93 98 14 years ago

fleitz• 14 years ago

Plain old mob mentality, something bad happened, no one likes it, the suspect is dead, someone must be punished, anyone tangentially related is fair game.

Might as well string up the person who sold him a pack of gum last week.

ecspike2• 14 years ago

This type of thing is precisely why, after seeing what happened to Richard Jewell after the '96 Olympics bombing, when a tragedy like this happens, I try to stay clear of anything that mentions the killer's name/motivations/etc for a couple days until there is a clearer picture.

danenania2• 14 years ago

"I try to stay clear of anything that mentions the killer's name/motivations/etc for a couple days until there is a clearer picture."

A journalist with any shred of integrity should do the same.

purplelobster• 14 years ago

Ugh, I feel bad for the guy. His entire life will probably be tainted by this. Any future employer, friend, lover can and will find out about it through a simple Google search. He's probably the worst of after this incident; his brother a mass murder, his mother shot dead, him being tainted for the rest of his life...

jlgreco• 14 years ago

With any luck the numerous libel/slander lawsuits will be enough to get him the help he is going to need to deal with this clusterfuck.

grncdr3• 14 years ago

Ryan Lanza will have to deal with negative repercussions for something he didn't do, but there are 28 other people who are far worse off than he is.

grncdr3• 14 years ago

Interesting.

> "He's probably the worst off [sic] after this incident"

Is pretty clearly false, but I guess my tone was offensive?

genwin8• 14 years ago

I wouldn't feel too bad for someone who gets to retire in their 20s, after the settlement checks start rolling in. He could probably start his lifetime vacation now, by getting a loan against the anticipated proceeds.

untog7• 14 years ago

Not sure that's true. If someone gets crippled in a car accident and gets settlement money, "retiring" in their 20s is probably very small consolation.

Granted, Ryan Lanza is physically fine, but his mind and reputation will probably never be the same.

koudelka2• 14 years ago

That's because you're an idiot. His mom is dead, he can't talk to his friends and his life is certainly in danger. His life is shattered, he can't buy a new one.

greenyoda• 14 years ago

I don't think that there are any large settlement checks in his future. To prove libel, don't you have to show that the author intentionally published something they knew was false? Just because a journalist is sloppy or inept doesn't mean he's committed libel.

ecspike2• 14 years ago

"In the end, social media got to the answer of who Ryan Lanza is much more quickly than a dozen local reporters would have done. But social media also creates a world in which we are watching the investigation — and reporting — unfold in real time."

A local reporter, in this case the usage seems pejorative, might have wanted until they were certain before printing the name and therefore might not have needed a retraction. I would have respected them more if they just said that news moves fast and they make their money from ads so being the first mover improves their bottom line.

monochromatic8• 14 years ago

> We have a problem with rushing to judgment.

... says a guy who, in the wake of a tragedy, rushes to say that we need more gun control.

mattdeboard• 14 years ago

When did he say that?

untog7• 14 years ago

Where does he say that?

monochromatic8• 14 years ago

> There a lot of things we need to have a “national discussion” about in America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most important . . . . We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety

Sounds to me like a man who has made up his mind.

astine• 14 years ago

On the front page of his website:

http://www.mattbors.com/

46Bit• 14 years ago

Similarly, bemoaning hassling a guy's Facebook profile by writing linkbait based on being a hassling Facebook friend.

RivieraKid5• 14 years ago

These two "rushings" are incomparable on many levels.

monochromatic8• 14 years ago

Yes. Rushing to judgment about Ryan Lanza affects one person. Rushing to toss away gun rights affects tens (hundreds?) of millions of people.

detst2• 14 years ago

We've all had the entirety of our lives to come to our current opinion of gun control and have the remainder of our lives to change that opinion; no rushing involved.

monochromatic8• 14 years ago

Many people have been in a rush these last few days.

ceejayoz• 14 years ago

> ... says a guy who, in the wake of a tragedy, rushes to say that we need more gun control.

Given that these things happen with a depressing regularity, it's hardly rushing to judgement at this point to say "we need to have a discussion about guns".

rekwah2• 14 years ago

RE: Facebook Groups

I've never understood the psychological reasons behind pointless social commentary during moments of tragedy such as this.

My social media streams were full of blather: "I feel bad for the parents and kids", "I hate school shooters", "I hate kid killers!!...ad nauseum. No kidding! There is a support group for people like you, it's called Everybody.

Why comment at all? Is it some coping mechanism? Do they feel as if they will be judged because they didn't publicly admonish the shooter?

untog7• 14 years ago

Some people feel an emotional identification with those at the centre of the event, and wish to communicate that with their social group so that they and their friends can support each other.

I don't do it either, but I don't particularly judge people who do. Everyone is different.

ahelwer• 14 years ago

Before taking a crack at answering this for you, I'd like to know - how did you feel when you heard about the shooting? What was your reaction? Would you generally describe yourself as an empathic person?

zalzane• 14 years ago

I would personally describe myself as an empathetic person - but on hearing about the shooting I honestly couldn't care less. Terrible heinous crimes happen every day on a far greater magnitude than one school shooting.

Why should the world throw such an emotional hissy fit when 20 white kids are murdered versus when so many more are killed on a regular basis through war, starvation, and poverty?

RivieraKid5• 14 years ago

I have a bit similar opinion to rekwah and I basically didn't feel anything. I think I have slightly above average empathy.

About 100 people die every minute by the way.

rekwah2• 14 years ago

I would say that I was/am sympathetic, not empathetic. I recognize that it's a tragedy for them, but I don't feel similar emotions.

I'm curious if the reason behind such vocalization is because very few people actually feel empathy. A facade for their feelings of joy/relief that such things didn't occur to someone they know.

I, as you probably guessed, don't have any children. I presume my feelings on the subject would be different if that weren't the case.

kaonashi• 14 years ago

Because if we let these events go by without comment, then we are bad people. If we take up the mantle and struggle against evil, then we are heroic.

That seems to be the thought process anyways.

saraid216• 14 years ago

I ended up making exactly one comment on the whole thing: "Not going to comment."

joonix• 14 years ago

Because people want to demonstrate how compassionate they are. Everyone else is letting everyone know that they are praying for someone, then they should too, or else they are "bad."

jspthrowaway26• 14 years ago

From the linked through article on BuzzFeed:

> Media did not identify the "wrong Ryan Lanza." BuzzFeed, Gawker and Mediaite correctly reported on the Facebook profile of the person who turned out to be the older brother of the alleged gunman — and they did so when he was the person being identified by law enforcement to CNN as the shooter.

This is wrong in a few ways. First:

As I understand it, "identified by law enforcement" was some guy in the Connecticut State Police talking to the media without authorization. The designated media contact of the local police, Lt. Vance, was correcting misinformation that was perpetuated by the media and Internet all day. Ryan Lanza was only one of many "facts" that grew legs and ran around the planet, to borrow from Twain. There were so many rumors, many of them perpetuated by the awful "This Just In" live blog on CNN, that were just shown to be blatantly untrue less than an hour later.

I've seen "This Just In" get it so horribly wrong on stories in the interest of speed in the past, particularly with Hurricane Sandy and Twitter (like when they wrote about the stock exchange being flooded based on some Twitter troll, and all the networks ran with it). Real news organizations, like the old stalwarts of CBS & Co., like to wait for a double confirmation. It appears that "This Just In" is being treated as a confirm (since "CNN reported it") by many organizations, even though the bar for truth is abysmally low on that blog. They don't even retract, even though they have the capability. They leave the untruth published, but update later saying "earlier we reported a lie. Sorry 'bout that, it isn't true".

Second:

They didn't "correctly report on the older brother". Half of the developed world ran a story similar to "LOOK AT THE FACE OF THIS STONE COLD KILLER. HERE HE IS". Whatever BuzzFeed needs to tell themselves to sleep better at night, I guess.

Third:

There is an argument that has taken hold in Europe that we should never identify the killer, or omit their last name, in circumstances like this. I sympathize with it extensively, along with the notion that we shouldn't run 24-hour coverage on this to glorify the killer (a common complaint from criminal psychiatrists). If it were against the rules to identify a killer, this would have never happened.

This is why all news organizations should double-confirm before ever releasing a fact with as much gravity as this. Hell, double-confirm everything. The irresponsibility displayed by the media and the ease of which a life can be destroyed in the age of the Internet are simply too dramatic for rush decisions any more. We need to have a culture shift toward being acceptable to waiting a few minutes to be told something is going on, if it means we can be more sure that we're reporting the truth. What point is a fact that we know within seconds if it's not even a fact? If journalism is reporting untruths, what purpose does journalism have in the public interest?

I entirely blame CNN here, and "This Just In" specifically. They got somebody to talk to them in the State Police who didn't know what he was talking about, they ran with it, and they ruined this kid's life. I'd like to see "This Just In" closed entirely, and the Associate Producer that got the duty of updating the blog post that day apologize personally to Ryan.

There is a systemic disease developing inside CNN, completely due to the Web, and it's beginning to infect downstream media. Please, CNN producer if you're reading this (which you should be if you're searching for tech stories), be better.

untog7• 14 years ago

I don't understand why law enforcement officials leak this stuff. Presumably they aren't benefitting financially (that would be highly illegal, and surely investigated?), and they aren't ever named publicly, so they don't even get fame out of it. So why risk your job like that?

jackpirate• 14 years ago

You scratch a journalist's back, they'll scratch yours when the time comes.

Plus, there's always accidental slip ups.

jspthrowaway26• 14 years ago

I used to work in journalism. Half of the journalism empire is built upon looking out for people so they'll look out for you in the future.

It's a minor scene in The Insider, but at one point Al Pacino's real-life character, CBS producer Lowell Bergman, helps the FBI out by not investigating a story. Later, the person he helped at the FBI tips CBS off exclusively about the arrest of the Unibomber, and tells them where to be. I believe that story is at least somewhat based on reality, and I've seen similar ones play out constantly in the media.

"Thank you for the positive coverage on that embarrassing story for the department," and so on, and eventually cops become a fountain of leads.

potatolicious• 14 years ago

Since you've worked in journalism, I had a question for you that I've been wondering about for a while.

Do you believe that journalistic standards have fallen over time in general, or is the latest rash of horrifically irresponsible reporting the actions of a few bad players, or has journalism always been this bad, and I'm just seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses?

I seem to remember a time when journalism was treated as a serious craft with serious responsibilities and obligations. Now every asshole with a Twitter account and a blog purports to "report" without assuming any of the responsibilities that come with journalism, including fact checking.

jspthrowaway26• 14 years ago

You nailed it toward the end. Journalism is struggling to catch up with instantness, and bloggers have muscled in and dirtied the field; the current decline, I think, started with 24-hour cable news and was only accelerated by the Internet. News channels airing opinion -- MSNBC, Fox News -- is also troublesome.

It's not entirely journalism's fault, either, as culturally we have begun to demand instant gratification and journalism responds as the market expects. Same with entertainment news. As Aaron Sorkin wrote, there is a debate between ratings driving content or content driving ratings -- sadly, too often, the former holds true.

pondababa• 14 years ago

They are supposed to double check--see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.. When a person who is not a public figure is defamed, the plaintiff only has to show that the defendant was negligent in making his defamatory statements, rather than the standard of recklessness to which he would be held in a case involving a public figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.

vampirechicken2• 14 years ago

> As I understand it, "identified by law enforcement" was some guy in the Connecticut State Police talking to the media without authorization.

I don't see how somebody from the state police, talking to the media, saying "Ryan Lanza is the name on the driver's license" does not constitute being "identified by law enforcement".

It may have been "erroneously identified by law enforcement" but that does not make "identified by law enforcement" a false statement, no matter how much you want it to be.

jspthrowaway26• 14 years ago

Because the word "identified" comes with special significance. It's a positive identification from the police as a matter of fact, and it's an official position. It carries weight and is reportable without the risk of libel. A low-level lieutenant who heard a name and then told the media to curry favor is not identifying. He's providing a lead, which must be confirmed from another source.

Compare: We are positively identifying the suspect as John Doe, who is in custody.

With: Hey, we are looking at John Doe as the suspect.

One is identification, the other isn't. It's a legally-important word and distinction. Again, I worked in the field, and your shot at the end about my personal bias was uncalled for and marred your otherwise good parry.

DanielBMarkham• 14 years ago

When we built the net, we had great dreams about every person on the planet connecting to each other and all the information they might need to make their lives better.

What we're actually building is something more like a cross between a tavern, a opium den, and a public square. People hang out in various random emotional moods, all waiting for something to trigger them into acting like a mob.

I know that sounds like hyperbole, but it's real. We are creating a system for over-reacting in a big way. Sometime -- sometime soon - some innocent person is going to get killed by one of the internet mob phenomenons. It's a miracle it hasn't happened already.

The interesting question is: what happens then? Does the net somehow correct itself? Or do the swings get wilder and wilder, ending up in 2050 or so with little bits of the net attacking little other bits in widely strewn locations? (What would be the term for this? Internet gangs? New nation-states? Niche warfare?)

mtoddh• 14 years ago

This. I think the author really highlighted this well at the end of the article:

"Social media purports to connect us but it often does the exact opposite. The barrier, the anonymity, the lack of accountability; all encourage the worst in people."

ndonnellan• 14 years ago

Perhaps because of the sheer number of people the internet has connected combined with the bell curve of asshole-ness, we think humanity is stupider than it is. Anonymity, unaccountability may certainly make things worse, but a small fraction multiplied by an insanely large number will still give us a lot of crazies.

te_chris• 14 years ago

The attacking between different factions already seems to be happening, witness the 4chan vs 9gag raids etc. People seemed to hold out this irrational hope that the internet would somehow make everyone engage at a higher intellectual level, that part was clearly wrong..

I guess that's the nice thing about the internet in some ways though, it pretty accurately reflects real life, though the stratification is much more pronounced.

electrichead• 14 years ago

Actually, this has already happened a few times. There are a number of suicidal people that posted on various networks about their problems and people egged them on. I think I remember the most vivid one being on bodybuilding.com

lbotos• 14 years ago

Have you seen this ignite talk:

http://igniteshow.com/videos/flash-mob-gone-very-very-wrong

I think you may enjoy it.

13rules• 14 years ago

The internet is just a tool, nothing more. People are going to use it to do great things. Others are going to use it for stupidity.

You can go to a library and read Aristotle or Tolstoy, or you can read the latest romance novel or surf porn on one of the library computers.

Some use the internet to do amazing things, to come together and create, invent, and help society progress. Others play Farmville all day.

Like anything else, what you put in is what you get out.

arscan• 14 years ago

The case of the mistaken identity of Neda Soltani in 2009 during the Iranian protests is worth reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20267989

> The whole thing happened in a matter of 12 days. In less than two weeks I had gone from being a professor of English literature, leading a very normal life, to a person who had to flee her homeland.

All because somebody mistook her facebook profile for someone else's

pycassa• 14 years ago

Wow.. speechless..

aes256• 14 years ago

The lack of critical thinking skills is perhaps my biggest gripe with humanity, and one that I believe underpins, in one way or another, all of its other failings.

If everyone had perfect critical thinking skills, misreporting such as this would cause no harm. There would be no need for defamation laws.

A news organization would make an incorrect assertion, and instead of leaping to conclusions, people would interrogate the assertion, evaluate the supporting evidence themselves, and reserve judgment until the facts are clear.

In the meantime, if you can't help but discuss or act on information of questionable accuracy, qualify yourself appropriately. "If Ryan Lanza was the person responsible, he is a monster!", not "Ryan Lanza is a monster!", etc.

loceng• 14 years ago

"We have a problem with rushing to judgment."

This is the key statement, and the behaviour perpetuated and taught by news outlets. They should be held hugely liable for misinformation and lies that go out -- sure, they legally, in the U.S. at least, have been found to be allowed to lie, but that doesn't mean they aren't liable.

P.S. I somewhat hope Ryan Lanza's Facebook account was unsearchable prior to Facebook changing all accounts to being searchable - I'd like to see if any legal consequences could come of it.

RivieraKid5• 14 years ago

Events like this shooting always remind me of Goerge Carlin talking about entropy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egRgweL12Uc&feature=yout...

Watch it, it's really good.

nmridul• 14 years ago

Is there a way to publicly shame the reporter ? Instead of just naming it as "cnn" or any other name without a face, it would be better to name the reporter and the editor. And also link to their Facebook page.

Next time it could keep other reporters in line.

JudgingRyan3• 14 years ago

Does anyone care what this must have done to him? He finds out by watching CNN at work, that his mother has been murdered, along with 20 small children & 6 adults, & that HE is being blamed for it. He is receiving hate mail on his FB page, people are threatening to kill him, all while he rides the business home alone. This is how he spends the first hour after finding out that his family is gone & that it was his little brother who killed his mother. And then the "kind" police officers escort him out in handcuffs for all the world to see. been one week since this tragedy & nowhere do I see anyone reaching out with kindness towards this 24 year old. The media could care less. He has the weight of all 28 victims on him. I cannot imagine his pain, fear, & intense sadness. So, when this country is asked to pray for those who lost loved ones, why in the name of God is he not being included? That is my question & I doubt that he would ever consider suing anyone, even though they deserve it. But I'll tell you what he deserves... grace, loving thoughts, & kindness, just as much as every else who lost someone they loved. My heart breaks for him.

JudgingRyan3• 14 years ago

"riding the bus home", not business. Journalism today is NOT CNN or MSNBC, or FOX. It's the corporate heads who demand results... right now! Everything is faster, more, now. It doesn't matter if it's true, just that it is EXTREME. Even on Dateline, which aired that Friday night, they reported that Mrs. Lanza was the kindergarten teacher & that's why Adam killed all of "her" students. WRONG! Shut off the TV & wait for the early edition of the New York Times. That's about the only way to get "real" journalism anymore. At least they apologize when they're wrong.

JudgingRyan3• 14 years ago

dixlynn57• 14 years ago

I agree with you, This poor young mans life has just been turned around on him. I can't imagine what he is going through,all the question he must have. I do think he should sue and a meaningful gesture on his part would be to give the money back to the community in one way or another. I pray that he can get through this with Gods grace.

I am Facebook friends with Ryan Lanza

Related Stories