Boston Bombing

My thoughts about the Boston marathon bombing are mixed.  I am encouraged by the response of the regular everyday people. Those at the bombing reacted quickly and helped the victims.  Seeing pictures of people carrying those hurt and applying first aid was inspiring.  The outpouring of donations of money and blood was impressive.  This some of the good that I saw over the last few weeks.  Also the quick resolution of the situation by the apprehension of the perpetrators so quickly; kept the fear of having another indecent from growing (at least from that set of criminals).  The bad: once again the media.  The over-blown, uninformed, around the clock coverage was again ridiculous.  The bad information that was reported and the speculation did nothing to help.  I think having to fill 24 hours of coverage causes this.  How about report what happened just the facts?  Then shut up until you have more facts.  Don't fill the void with rumor and conjecture.  The media contributes to these incidents with the coverage.  Having caught these guys quickly has cut off the flood and may contribute to minimizing the over exposure and encouragement of copy cats.
Was this terrorism?  I say yes if you define it as violent acts meant to influence others behavior with the fear created.  More succinctly from the dictionary: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.  Terror is defined as an intense state of fear.  Now reports state the reason for the attack was they were displeased that America was waging war in Afghanistan and had been at war in Iraq.  I would assume the idea was to influence or coerce us to leave Afghanistan or were they just mad and wanted to let our their anger?  The other problem is with the definition is that was it systemic?  A single act is not systemic.  In fact I liken the bombing to a mass shooting by a disgruntled person.  They acted out against America instead of a elementary school. Is carrying out a violent attack against a state terrorism, is it war, is it just a crime?  When it comes down to does it matter?  The survivor will be tried and punished.  Should be tried with murder and no need to blow it into something other than that.  In fact trumping up the charges to terrorism could make him a martyr in other potential violent prone individuals eyes and could spur another act.  I say minimize the act, minimize the individual (don't make them a celebrity), but punish severely. If the media does their usual this wont happen.  He will be made out to be public enemy #1 and get more than the 15 minutes of fame he already has gotten.  The more time spent in the spotlight is more chances of spawning copycats after the lime light.  It also gives the acts a stage to increase the potential terror effectivity of another attack.  I wouldn't do it.