It will come out in the end.

either through an official police announcement or charges.

I hope that the media shows the same restraint in all cases.

wind up suing several press organizations over being named a suspect?

I think CNN and MSNBC are just being careful.

The worst was probably Tom Brokaw. The speculation is that NBC was trying to keep the panic down for another bombing because they had the Olympics that year. Don't know if that is true.

No evidence that Kelly Scruggs ever slept with an FBI agent for a story. That should not have been included in Eastwood's movie. It ruined any chance I would ever see it. The AJC was one outlet that never paid a settlement.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2003-06-01-0306010279-story.html

NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw said of Jewell: "Look, they probably got enough to arrest him. They probably have got enough to try him."

NBC entertainment personality Jay Leno joked that Jewell was the "Una-doofus."

Ron Martz and Kelly Scruggs of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote in their July 30, 1996, story's second paragraph that Jewell "fits the profile of the lone bomber."

Columnist Dave Kindred published the address and apartment number of Jewell's residence and invoked the name of a convicted Atlanta child killer, Wayne Williams, comparing the way Jewell and Williams each was a "suspect who lived with his mother."

WXIA-TV conducted an interview with an alleged expert on "Hero's syndrome," discussing the way a person might try anything, even a staged act of heroism, to draw attention to himself.

they have no such scruples

Glad they’re being careful for a change.

 
←

Like Colonel Kurtz said in Apocalypse Now, "It's no longer classified, is it?"

This is a particularly heinous crime. Remember poor Richard Jewel? CNN is one of the better news sources (especially their online site). And you link to fucking Faux?

for certain where and who the Monster may be.

No sense going all whack job on every Tom, Dick, and servermsh whom we think looks guilty, or who's been erroneously implicated.

even if that information could be incorrect - and even if knowing that information makes not a whit of difference in the scheme of things to any of us.

There is absolutely no reason that the general public need to know this person's name right now.

Just because you think they would have done it with a Muslim suspect (and that's debatable) doesn't mean they should do that now if it's the wrong thing to do, which it is.

Why is it in the public's interest for CNN to broadcast his name right now, as opposed to in a few hours? Would knowing his name make any difference to you in any way?

From past experiences. Perhaps should consider following their example.

Yeah?

Then what's your beef?