2 ms·

I think this is a valid concern, but one that applies to most media. In my field, I often see pieces circulated which are incorrect with facts sourced from less

by ABCLAW 10y ago

I think this is a valid concern, but one that applies to most media. In my field, I often see pieces circulated which are incorrect with facts sourced from less precise colleagues of mine. I don't believe the piece was not 'newsworthy', though, and I believe the security industry's response should have been one of collaboration rather than admonition - it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see an industry with a clear communication problem striking at their best potential ally. The Guardian are not the 'bad guys' for trying to inform us of a vulnerability.

morganvachon 10y ago
> The Guardian are not the 'bad guys' for trying to inform us of a vulnerability. This is my ultimate takeaway as well; their intent was good, it was their implementation that fell short. I'm just really bothered that they are unwilling to own their mistake and retract the article, or at the very least allow a counter-editorial to be written and published by them.
- idlewords 10y ago
  They've offered to publish a counter-editorial. But that would just lead to a headline like "Experts Divided Over Critical WhatsApp Vulnerability". They need to retract.