That's what a lot of people are doing after the Trib's pathetic attempt at journalism to "cover" the autopsy results of the West victims.
I'm not a big boycott guy, generally. I try to use the products I like and avoid the ones I don't like - for whatever reasons. But the outcry over the Trib's decision to publish the original piece describing in graphic detail the autopsy results of the West victims is only getting larger.
And the situation was only made worse with the explanation the Trib posted informing readers why they made the decision to go with the story. Click here to read the entire post but here's an excerpt:
...this newspaper does not believe one can sufficiently acknowledge the sacrifices of those lost by glossing over the devastation of what happened that day — specifically, the sheer violence of a chemical explosion ultimately caused by an astounding lack of state and federal regulation.
Right. Not reporting unnecessary, graphic details is not the same as glossing over. But even more to the point, as I said when the story first came out, if the editors at the Trib had any balls or journalistic integrity they would have published an explanation next to the original version of their story. If you think this info is relevant, then have the stones to tell us which firefighters received which injuries and which ones had elevated BAC levels. Instead they waited until the proverbial stuff hit the fan and it blew up in their faces to post this lazy justification. Either this explanation is complete cover your ass BS or the editors are so out of touch with the community that they really didn't think this would be a big deal.
Or maybe it was all about increased internet traffic and driving web hits. In that case, congratulations on your success, Trib.
If you're interested, here is the link to the Boycott the Trib facebook page (click on the picture below):
In the meantime, WFAA in Dallas did what the Trib didn't have the stones to do - name names. If you're going to release these details (including the BAC levels of some of the responders) then name names. If your point as a news organization is to raise questions based on the autopsy results, then do it and put the full editorial support of the news organization behind it. Again, you may not agree with the decision to publish such details, and that's a fair debate to have, but if you are going to do it then to a full report instead of dancing around it like the Trib did.