Note: This post is written with all due respect to the victims and their families, and was written with all available information as of the afternoon of December 14, 2012. They say you shouldn’t post things online when you’re angry or drunk. Well, one out of two isn’t bad.

On Friday, amidst the nation’s shock and dismay at the mass murder of 18 schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, CNN reported that Ryan Lanza was the shooter’s name and actually posted a link to his Facebook profile.

The logic behind arming the unwitting and fuming masses with a digital pitchfork aside, CNN got it wrong. It was widely known that the shooter was dead at the conclusion of the murders, and soon there were screenshots circulating online of the very same Ryan Lanza posting on his Facebook that he was still indeed alive, on a bus, and was involved in a case of mistaken identity by CNN. Meanwhile, his Facebook profile picture was shared over 5,000 times by people posting messages about what a monster he was. And if I know the internet, I’m sure he and his Facebook friends got their share of online abuse.

Screenshot of Ryan Lanza’s Facebook as reported by Slate

To their credit, Slate also mistakenly reported that Ryan was the shooter, but they later recanted their Tweet and posted the screenshot above. It’s hard to unring a bell, though.

Among other choice words, Ryan wrote “F-ck you CNN…”. It’s hard to argue with that sentiment. Consider this: this young man Ryan (who lived in NJ at the time) heard about a shooting in his hometown, where his mother was killed. At some point, he was handcuffed by the police and interrogated knowing only parts of the story (learning that his brother was the perpetrator and also likely murdered their father). On top of that, his face is posted all over the internet and he’s labeled as a child murderer. All of this because CNN jumped to conclusions and speculated as to the identity of the shooter.

It’s no secret that the 24-hour news cycle is a detriment to quality reporting. To use CNN as a top example, their heavy use of social media and crowdsourced reporting (e.g. iReport) as “sources” is reaching ludicrous levels. Who takes responsibility when a Twitter source is wrong? Clearly, not CNN. There are repercussions to sloppy news reporting.

They say that history is written by the winners, and also that news is the first draft of history. If that’s the case, then CNN is making themselves out to be a big loser. Take responsibility for your editorial decisions, and rebuild your reputation. Otherwise, stop calling yourself a news organization.

Take a look at the latest covers of TIME Magazine:

The different covers of the Feb 27, 2012 edition of TIME Magazine (click to enlarge)

This piqued my interest for several reasons. The first was obviously that “Lil’ Kim” is the most clever headline that anyone could have come up with for that cover story. Seriously, take note, ESPN. You can make a pun about an Asian person without resorting to “accidental” racial slurs.

But more importantly, one of the topics making its way around media circles is how TIME Magazine “dumbs down” covers for the US audience. It’s been inferred that their editors don’t believe Americans care about worldly issues like overseas uprisings or the European economy. Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly on this Daily Show segment.

So it’s very interesting to me that for the February 27 issue of TIME, it’s the Asian version that has a different cover from the rest. When I first saw the spread above, I thought for sure it was the US version that would have the LINSANITY! cover. After all, Jeremy Lin is one of the biggest stories and personalities of the year so far. My thought process then moved onto thinking that maybe TIME had done the ol’ American switcheroo one too many times and realized the error of their ways, so they left the Kim Jong Un cover on (with a very America-centric reference to hip hop artist Lil Kim).

But once you start peeling the layers of the onion even deeper, you realize that maybe there was some self-censorship at play in the Asian version. After all, any article about Kim Jong Un is bound to mention his late father in a less than desirable light. I’m not sure if they even get TIME Magazine in North Korea, but I’m sure their potential version of TIME (even if heavily edited) doesn’t include stories about bears mourning for the Dear Leader. And I would suppose that some governments would take offense to the American view of Asian diplomacy (or lack thereof).

Then I remembered something I had read online about how the Chinese media doesn’t know how to cover the Jeremy Lin story. Its citizens know who he is, but covering his background is a bit tricky due to the fact that he’s from Taiwan (whose independence the Chinese government doesn’t recognize) and because he openly talks about his Christian faith (which is a big no-no). So, clearly not the greatest cover story choice either. Was TIME Magazine just choosing what it believed to the lesser of two evils? The backlash from a Jeremy Lin story from the Chinese government would definitely be a lot less harsh than that of a potentially defamatory Kim Jong Un article in North Korea.

I wanted some expert opinions on the matter, so I Tweeted at NPR’s On The Media.  Their response was that TIME was probably trying to cater to the Asian audience who’s going Linsane at the moment. Am I just paranoid or did I just overlook Occam’s Razor? Because money as a motivator is typically the simplest explanation.

In either case, a good media study up for debate.

There’s a fine line between agenda setting and straight up lying to your audience, and this clip from from The Colbert Report highlights just how ridiculous the coverage of the Norway terror attacks by select America news media was.

However, as a student of Mass Communication, it made me a bit sad (and embarrassed) to see how poorly handled the situation was, not to mention how it showed desperation on the part of AP to cling onto what dignity it had left.

Oh, and there are also the issues of shoddy journalism and utter Public Relations fail. Anybody could do a simple Google search on Woot to discover that the nature of their editorial content is facetious at worst and lighthearted ribbing at best. To turn a joke into a serious matter was a huge communication mistake, and AP pretty much openly invited the criticisms of Woot loyalists and people who were just plain Internet savvier than the AP.

This was potentially an excellent PR opportunity for AP to set themselves apart from the rest of the struggling online news industry. Sure, they could have dismissed Woot’s allegation altogether or called shenanigans. But they could have also played along. The AP could have written an equally silly response to Woot to show that they have a sense of humor and “get” how the Internet works.

But alas, it was a poorly mishandled Mass Comm and PR trainwreck.

That whole Balloon Boy saga was a huge blow to the credibility of news organizations everywhere. It really showed that nobody was above covering sensationalistic news. Perhaps, at a deeper level, it also explained why the Internet has eclipsed traditional media as the news channel of choice for so many people.

I don’t dislike traditional news as an industry. It’s strange to be part of the generation that gets to witness the transition of what was once nontraditional into the new norm. And to watch the aging dinosaurs buckle at the knees, one by one. Things like the Balloon Boy hoax showed how easy it was to exploit traditional media and how desperate those outlets were to break a story that people care about.

And that is why I totally support the criminal charges brought against Balloon Boy’s parents. The advent of the 24 hours news cycle has done wonders to undermine the integrity of TV news. Hopefully, with lessons learned from this hoax, the industry will regain some shred of dignity. If it’s not too late, that is.

But really, who would have thought that parents who named their kid Falcon could be desperate for attention?