BC students can relax: Police say there is no serial tickler in Brighton

Somehow, we missed the editor's note on boston.com's scoop last week about the guy sneaking into the homes of BC students and tickling them while they sleep:

On Wednesday, May 28, the Boston Police Department stated that they have identified only one incident in the last two years where a foot was touched and that they know of no police reports that refer to any actions that can be described as tickling.

Buzzfeed quotes a BPD spokesman:

The quotes given by Sgt. O’Hara were given in response to questions unrelated to tickler incidents. They were printed out of context by the reporter.

Oopsies.

Thanks to Media Farm at the Dig for reading boston.com when we just don't have the time. Also, click on the Media Farm link for a taste of what area law-enforcement types were keeping close tabs on before last year's Marathon (no, it wasn't bombers) - and for the scoop on how the Globe is trying to paint boston.com in meetings with advertisers.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Boston.com

By on

the digital paper of record.

Sarcasm off.

You know, I always thought

By on

You know, I always thought news outlets of any decent repute were supposed to print retractions or corrections in response to mistakes or, as in this case, outright falsehoods.. not "Updates" or "Editor's Notes" which don't state that their student reporters were lying.

But maybe since boston.com is simply the mutant Upworthified face of the Globe I'm asking too much to expect any real standards?

You want truth for free?

I also noticed the bizarre way this went down. Even Emily Rooney on Beat the Press made note of it. Yet despite years of corrections about the race of a perp or whether a getaway car was really a pickup, THIS remains to remind those BC kids that they didn't really want to be journalists anyhow. Plus, Dan Kennedy makes sure that Northeastern coops get what few jobs there are anyhow. We can't have English majors writing copy now, can we?

Of course!

By on

A game of telephone with 4 or less people wouldn't have created anything nearly as amusing.