When bombs exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, the horrific event took lives and shook the resolve of the community.

As law enforcement agencies went through the course of investigation and narrowing down the list of potential suspects, media outlets were scrambling to cover the story in one of the largest markets in our nation.

As I mentioned yesterday, during the coverage from the time the bombs went off to today, we have been exposed to a few good reports, offering perspective and an historical account of what took place.

But on radio and TV broadcasts, in Twitter posts and blogs, and on news outlet websites, we’ve had a dirge of drivel that I’m embarrassed to even call journalism.

A former colleague of mine shook his virtual head at CNN in its report Wednesday questioning if bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s involvement in boxing may have been a root cause of the act. Did possible brain damage sustained in a sport cause the now dead man to want to act out against others?

I agree with my colleague’s take – is this what we call journalism?

A news outlet, is right in doing its own digging on the background of whom law enforcement is reporting as the lead participant in a criminal act. But should a reporter, known as the protectorate "CNN Staff" in this case, be making speculations on a dead person’s act because of evidence they’ve found in this so-called reporting?

What we, as viewers and readers, are being spoon fed is a load of bull, meant to keep our attention so we continue to consume the outlet’s news programming and advertisements. Speculation delivered with a generic byline … or even when a station anchor is putting their name behind it, is just speculation. The problem is, that in an effort to keep us entertained, there is a greying of the line between what is news fact and what is a part of the broadcast show. There’s a reason in broadcast that the news is called a show. It is scripted, it is cast, and storylines are played out.

In the on-going coverage, we’ve also seen the utter disregard for training and credibility within organization’s social media ranks. The Columbia Journalism Review posted a fascinating interview that reporter Sara Morrison conducted via email with former Reuters deputy social media director Matthew Keys.

Keys was released from his position with the news organization following a paid suspension and subsequent Twitter posts through the events in Boston. Keys was on suspension following the indictment of the U.S. Justice Department for allegedly making a past employer’s network information available for hackers. Then, while suspended, he kept the Reuters title on his account, sharing "news."

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Keys took jabs at his current boss, erroneously reported that a suspect was in custody and continued to share Boston police scanner messages on Twitter even after the media was asked no stop doing that. The 26-year-old Keys had some interesting answers to questions regarding his behavior.

The most telling for me was this final bit:

"As for where this all winds up, who knows," Keys responded. "I still have a pretty loyal following. My work stands for itself. After we win our court case and our arbitration with Reuters, I might take another swing at journalism. Or maybe after the crazy has died down I’ll decide journalism isn’t for me."

He used news to draw his own following. He leaned on the credibility of the news source he worked for and whether or not his anonymous sources in Boston were legit, he used the deaths of others to put a spotlight on himself.

When asked if Reuters expected too much from him to boost the news organization’s social media footprint, Keys offers this:

"While it doesn’t say it in the written warning, Reuters issued the final warning while admitting that I hadn’t received the proper training on how Reuters operates as a news organization, what is expected of their journalists, and so on. A good example is the Trust Principles, which Reuters claims I violated. I had no idea what the Trust Principles were until I was sent to training in early November – two weeks after the 'final warning.' I don’t understand how the company can expect its journalists to abide by a set of principles without telling its journalists what those principles are. That’s like trying to play a board game without having first read the rules."

You want an example of bad journalism during the Boston Marathon bombings, here’s a prime one.

Shame on Keys, and more importantly, shame on Reuters.

If this is the type of journalism we can continue to expect when big, breaking news happens … then God help us all.

BUSH ON PARADE: Well the former President Bush isn’t on parade, but has had a number of sit-down interviews with a few media outlets this week. You can catch George W. Bush and Laura Bush in a couple of airings on Fox News Channel this afternoon at 4 and 5 p.m.

"Special Report" anchor Bret Baier and former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino will lead the coverage live from Dallas.