Covering the Boston Marathon bombings.

The bombings that occurred at the Boston Marathon on Monday affected me on two different levels. For me, and I’m sure many others, it hit extremely close to home. To me, Boston is “the big city,” where I would always go on daytrips with my family. My older brother went to Emerson, and over the years, as I would visit him, I learn to navigate a small part of the city—what I like to call “My Section of Boston.” My Section of Boston is the area near the Commons: from Boylston Street, to Tremont Street, to Beacon Hill. I’ve spent a lot of time at Emerson, and I applied to Northeastern and BU, and while I ended up at UNH, many of my friends attend different schools in Boston. I’ve always had strong ties to the city, and I always will. To think that something like this can happen in a place I hold so close to my heart is, in a word, devastating. While I didn’t know anyone injured by the bombings, or even running the race, I know some friends who have run it in previous years. This year, one of my friends was at the finish line but luckily decided to leave 10 minutes before the attacks. Other good friends of mine were supposed to be there to watch at the finish line, but because of last-minute circumstances, they couldn’t make it. Though none of my friends or family were direct victims of this event, the chances that they could have been were high.

For me, one of the most surreal aspects of this is that just Saturday night, I was in that area with my friend. We were in town for a concert, and spent the day down by Boylston and Tremont. One thing I can’t stop thinking about is how the singer we were seeing, Mika, sang his song “Relax (Take It Easy),” which he said he penned right after the London subway bombing; two days later, bombs went off just blocks away from the venue we saw him in.

Personal ties aside, the incident also affected me as a journalism student. From the moment I walked into class, I began taking in the information that was pouring out about what had happened. While the news sources were constantly releasing “new” information, it really seemed to be all the same, and it all showed that no one really knew much of anything as the details were still being discovered. I lost count of how many times I saw the UNH student in the red cap cross the screen on the same video feed over and over again. But, as the classroom functioned as a news room, each of us with our own social media sites up and different news feeds running, we managed to pull together a somewhat concrete idea of what had actually happened.

Since Monday, authorities have discovered considerably more information about the bombings. As the news was breaking, many news sources were reporting that there were two dead, and 23 injured—with the exception of the New York Post who had incorrectly stated that the toll was at 12 dead. Current reports say that at this point, there are three dead and close to 200 injured. Overall, on Monday, information was hazy at best, with many statements released that eventually proved to be false: cell phones couldn’t be used because they might set off bombs, cell phone service was shut down, a Saudi national was named as a person of interest in the bombings, a bombing also occurred at JFK Library, etc., etc. With these also came many rumors about the victims, including the report that a girl from Sandy Hook elementary was killed, along with a woman whose fiancé planned to propose to her once she crossed the finish line. I think that the release and subsequent retraction of these reports raises an important question for journalists: When does being first become more important that being accurate? I think the news source that reported that a Saudi national was named as a suspect should have asked themselves this question—and if they did, they should have thought about it for longer. With a false statement such as the one they made, they held the potential to raise hysteria and ruin lives. 

Though in chaotic events such as these it can be difficult to separate the facts from the false claims, in any situation—especially ones as sensitive and critical as this—being accurate should always be the first priority.

For me, I think it’s important to realize that these events don’t simply end when all the victims have been named, or even if the perpetrator has been captured. There are always questions that can be asked. As reporters, we can talk to the families of those affected, or the first responders to get their accounts. We can find out the next steps that can be taken, or see the global effect of this event. How are people around the country showing their support? How will this bombing affect the turn-out of future Boston Marathons? Following up, asking the deeper questions, and finding new answers are the best ways to keep this story fresh, and to keep the readers thinking.