But if the incidents were true, reporting on them would have resulted in the same number of deaths.
That would have been OK with you since it was good investigative reporting? I'm confused by your statement. Are you saying that you don't see a difference between dying for a lie, and dying for something truthful?
The one who is doing the dying doesn't see a damn bit of difference.
Posters are upset because people died due to shoddy reporting. I say their outrage is misdirected. The story should never had been reported, true or not.
Certainly if the story were true, the same number of innocents would have been killed. Would posters have been upset with Newsweek for reporting a true story? Sounds to me like they wouldn't, even though the same number would have died since the murderers were reacting to the story, not the acual event.
A little hypocritical?