A local Boston television network, WHDH, thought they smelled a big story when they tracked down the roommate of a Saudi national who was in the hospital after getting hurt in the Boston Marathon bombings yesterday. The New York Post reported that he was being held in connection to the attacks, but that was later shown to be a false report (if the New York Post is the only source for a story, the story is almost invariably wrong).
Meanwhile, channel 7 tracked down the Saudi national's roommate, Mohammed Bada, and questioned him about his hospital-bound roommate and why the police searched his apartment. Bada was confused, doesn't speak perfect English and seemed to get increasingly agitated by the reporters' questions. That makes sense, because the reporters got increasingly aggressive.
Eventually, the scene reduced itself to this:
REPORTER: Do you think your roommate had some connection to the bombing?
REPORTER: Why not?
Why not? It would be one thing if there was a good reason to suspect that Bada was hiding something, but if he was a key witness, this interview would be left to the FBI, not the local news. If this a white kid, does the reporter ask why not? Hard to say. They did start off with gentler questions, and reporters are trained to keep peppering people with questions, but you know something has gone wrong when we get to: hey kid, we are going to assume your roommate is probably guilty with very little evidence, now justify his innocence.