7 ms·

> Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. What about that news article

> Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. What about that news article that WaPo published about the guy who found some malware on his laptop and was blown out into this https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.d10ca0d028e8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi... I don't know how you could go from a virus on a laptop to "Russia is hacking into our power grid" unless you are being intentionally dishonest or have such an agenda that you jump at any scrap to make a story.

matt4077 10y ago
Yeah, that was stupid. There's also a big fat note at the top of that article now, and there were probably more articles about the retraction than there were about the original article.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  For me, the trustworthiness of news sites comes down to whether they issue corrections when they run questionable stories. It's the easiest binary test I know of. Mistakes and ignorance happen, it's only stubborn refusal to ever admit to being wrong that is unacceptable.
  - macintux 10y ago
    > it's only stubborn refusal to ever admit to being wrong that is unacceptable. Sounds like a certain US president we know.
snakeboy 10y ago
Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece about this and another similar "Russian fear-mongering" story from the Washington Post. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewar...
hackuser 10y ago
I don't see one mistake as a meaningful sample. Of course the Washington Post makes some mistakes.
- shard972 10y ago
  I don't see something like this as a simple mistake, to me it's closer to gross negligence. How do you write an entire article like that without anyone asking "hey so, how is this a risk?". They wrote an entire article about the all the danger that this event shows us except the most basic questions about the hack would have quickly lead you to a realisation that there was absolutely nothing here. They even pin it on Lazy Bear the "Elite Russian hacking group". How the hell did they did they get that conclusion from malware? Unless they were shooting entire clips from the hip.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > How do you write an entire article like that without anyone asking "hey so, how is this a risk?". We don't know what they did in the course of writing the article or how the article ended up as it is. Maybe they did ask that, and the person they asked views the situation differently than you do; maybe they got conflicting answers and chose what was most convincing. Maybe they wrote about it and the editor cut it. (For argument sake, I'm accepting your conclusion about the article's shortcomings; I don't know about that myself.)
    - shard972 10y ago
      Well I think the answers to that can be found by looking at the background of the people. It's hard for me to go around telling people who they are since it can be subjective but let's just say I don't really have a lot of faith in my generation at the moment (20-30 year olds).
      - hackuser 10y ago
        It's not hyperbole to say that's an impossible leap of speculation: You know what someone's actions were in a particular situation based solely on their age?
nl 10y ago
What about that news article that WaPo published about the guy who found some malware on his laptop and was blown out into this https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi.... I don't know how you could go from a virus on a laptop to "Russia is hacking into our power grid" unless you are being intentionally dishonest or have such an agenda that you jump at any scrap to make a story. That was terrible. Good thing WaPo withdrew it and posted this: Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.[1] I dunno. I've occasionally got things wrong before. The real problem is when they double-down on an incorrect position in the face of evidence to the contrary. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- acqq 10y ago
  If you just read the title, you'll still conclude that the article describes a real event "Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say" Even if we now know it's a lie. I'm trying to figure out what would be the proper way to modify the title to show it's wrong and to still provide the readers the insight that the paper claimed something that was debunked?
- shard972 10y ago
  It's good they at least put a notice at the top but that doesn't excuse them. This is the kind of stuff Gawker does and was heavily criticized for, running a story without checking the facts because you want to be first or it fits your "narrative". I'm not sure what else it could be without it being much worse reason.
  - 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

Yeah, that was stupid. There's also a big fat note at the top of that article now, and there were probably more articles about the retraction than there were about the original article.

sanderjd 10y ago
For me, the trustworthiness of news sites comes down to whether they issue corrections when they run questionable stories. It's the easiest binary test I know of. Mistakes and ignorance happen, it's only stubborn refusal to ever admit to being wrong that is unacceptable.
- macintux 10y ago
  > it's only stubborn refusal to ever admit to being wrong that is unacceptable. Sounds like a certain US president we know.

snakeboy 10y ago

Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece about this and another similar "Russian fear-mongering" story from the Washington Post. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewar...

hackuser 10y ago

I don't see one mistake as a meaningful sample. Of course the Washington Post makes some mistakes.

shard972 10y ago
I don't see something like this as a simple mistake, to me it's closer to gross negligence. How do you write an entire article like that without anyone asking "hey so, how is this a risk?". They wrote an entire article about the all the danger that this event shows us except the most basic questions about the hack would have quickly lead you to a realisation that there was absolutely nothing here. They even pin it on Lazy Bear the "Elite Russian hacking group". How the hell did they did they get that conclusion from malware? Unless they were shooting entire clips from the hip.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > How do you write an entire article like that without anyone asking "hey so, how is this a risk?". We don't know what they did in the course of writing the article or how the article ended up as it is. Maybe they did ask that, and the person they asked views the situation differently than you do; maybe they got conflicting answers and chose what was most convincing. Maybe they wrote about it and the editor cut it. (For argument sake, I'm accepting your conclusion about the article's shortcomings; I don't know about that myself.)
  - shard972 10y ago
    Well I think the answers to that can be found by looking at the background of the people. It's hard for me to go around telling people who they are since it can be subjective but let's just say I don't really have a lot of faith in my generation at the moment (20-30 year olds).
    - hackuser 10y ago
      It's not hyperbole to say that's an impossible leap of speculation: You know what someone's actions were in a particular situation based solely on their age?

nl 10y ago

What about that news article that WaPo published about the guy who found some malware on his laptop and was blown out into this https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi.... I don't know how you could go from a virus on a laptop to "Russia is hacking into our power grid" unless you are being intentionally dishonest or have such an agenda that you jump at any scrap to make a story. That was terrible. Good thing WaPo withdrew it and posted this: Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.[1] I dunno. I've occasionally got things wrong before. The real problem is when they double-down on an incorrect position in the face of evidence to the contrary. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
acqq 10y ago
If you just read the title, you'll still conclude that the article describes a real event "Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say" Even if we now know it's a lie. I'm trying to figure out what would be the proper way to modify the title to show it's wrong and to still provide the readers the insight that the paper claimed something that was debunked?
shard972 10y ago
It's good they at least put a notice at the top but that doesn't excuse them. This is the kind of stuff Gawker does and was heavily criticized for, running a story without checking the facts because you want to be first or it fits your "narrative". I'm not sure what else it could be without it being much worse reason.
- 10y ago