Anyone see any merit in this?

I don't see a lot in three of them. The third one, IMO, does illustrate the professor's point well, that even in the face of such a tragic event, we should maintain our skepticism about news accounts and seek evidence to back up any stories from whatever source.

The events that I have personal knowledge of and saw later in news accounts have been pretty consistently misrepresented, not by any intentional effort to disguise the truth, but by sloppy reporting.

The rush to be first with the news on anything of such dramatic effect will always have a negative influence on the careful collection of information and fact-checking, even without any political influences being applied. And the delay in getting realistic information to the public will always increase the number of questions about what really happened, especially when some reports directly conflict with others.

The message he's trying to get across is that conspiracy theories are enhanced when reporting is sketchy and inconsistent, and evidence is lacking or withheld from the public.

His sensitivity may be lacking in using the tragedy so quickly, but that's really the point he is making, that we can be misled by the manipulation of our emotions during such times and need to retain our standards of credibility in accepting reports that will affect our reactions.

IMO, he should state that intention more clearly at the first opportunity. If he has already done so, that portion of the interview was probably left out to increase the controversial nature of his position, because outrageousness makes more news than reasonable calls for prudence in assessing news.

It used to be said to sell papers. Now it's more about the notoriety of being the most watched on you-tube of the most-liked on Facebook.

I don't share his theory about this particular tragedy, and I don't think we are expected to, so much as we are expected to be made aware of the potential that what we see reported is likely to be at least wrong, and possibly intentionally misleading or downright lies.

In that, I think he has a very valid point.