The articles that have been appearing about the tiger at the zoo getting out and killing a person are upsetting to me.
Primarily, of course, because of what happened.
But then because there was unwarranted speculation that the victims somehow caused this to happen. If they were strolling around the zoo minding their own business, this truly is insult to injury. Can't we wait a day or two to find out before we slam dead and unconscious people?
Then there's this: "Their names were provided by hospital and law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the family had not yet given permission to release their names." Said names reported in the article, of course. First, the people who spoke on condition of anonymity need to be identified and then fired, at the very least. Second, every venue that reported those names needs to do some soul-searching. You knew you were not supposed to have this information. Why did you report it? What news value did this have? Are you just automatically forced to blurt out every speck of information you get?
On a completely trivial note, the initial articles said that after a zookeeper was mauled by this tiger before, a feeding "shoot" was installed. Later articles had the word corrected to "chute". Perhaps when the reporters and editors have finished searching their consciences over the necessity of printing information they are not supposed to have and that informs no one of anything they need to know, they can review the concept of homonyms.