Rolling Stone Cover? This is why it is wrong....warning Graphic Photo.

[Fawke Em]

115. Do they have that evidence?

Because, none of us have seen that. We've only heard about it.

They may have it and they may not. The public hasn't seen it, yet - and probably won't until trial.

And, that's my point. They probably do, but, right now, none of us know for sure.

I'm sure there have been cases where the media have behaved worse - isolated cases like the O.J. Simpson trial - but my complaint is that the media is becoming more and more and more tabloid and less and less and less informative.

(BTW, there are legitimate issues with the Boston case that aren't confined to the conspiracy theory websites. For example, I'd like to know how a gravely injured and medically-drugged teenager "confesses" to anything. And the lack of Mirandizing him for public safety is going to be a problem, legally. Since the FBI didn't just keep their questioning limited to "are there more bombs," they may have violated Tsarnaev's rights. That's why a judge came down and Mirandized him. She may have feared the FBI was going to blow the case or she heard that he'd repeatedly asked for an attorney - not sure. You can Google some legal journals for more on that - many of them have opined on it. And don't get me started on the young man shot in Florida. This case is beyond odd.)

Edited to add this: I think the media should be asking the questions I posed in parenthesis. IMHO, it's not the media's job to defend or convict anyone, in particular, who is charged with a crime, but it is their job to question the erosion of civil rights as it applies to one person because it could effect us all. I think the media did a fair job looking into the Stand Your Ground law as a result of Zimmerman, but some of them did cross the line on the question of his guilt.