This New Yorker item explains why:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... n-man.html
The "national" wasn't in custody, of course, but was in the hospital, having been wounded in the blast. Here's how Fox responded, despite a lack of any facts at all:
“There must be enough evidence to keep him there,” Andrew Napolitano said on “Fox and Friends”—“there” being the hospital. “They must be learning information which is of a suspicious nature,” Steve Doocy interjected. “If he was clearly innocent, would they have been able to search his house?” Napolitano thought that a judge would take any reason at a moment like this, but there had to be “something”—maybe he appeared “deceitful.” As Mediaite pointed out, Megyn Kelly put a slight break on it (as she has been known to do) by asking if there might have been some “racial profiling,” but then, after a round of speculation about his visa (Napolitano: “Was he a real student, or was that a front?”), she asked, “What’s the story on his ability to lawyer up?”
Media Matters asks an interesting question.
But in terms of journalism and ethics and common sense, the Post's performance does make you wonder how a news organization, and even one owned by Rupert Murdoch, manages to get a story that wrong?
But of course it's left to the Onion to actually call the clown a clown.
All I cared about in the moment was giving our readers a vague, erroneous conception of what was happening on the ground while also beating our competitors to the punch with a more sensationalistic story featuring a drastically higher body count.
Why? Because in the midst of such an immense tragedy, that’s what truly mattered. And that’s the kind of reporting the New York Post strives for each and every day.