3 ms·

> 3 separate instances where Krebs got it wrong. Seems to happen a little too often. A former employer of mine was the subject of multiple Krebs pieces. Many o

> 3 separate instances where Krebs got it wrong. Seems to happen a little too often. A former employer of mine was the subject of multiple Krebs pieces. Many of the facts he has reported were incorrect. I have no personal stake in getting involved to "set the record straight" and much to lose by doing so. There's only so much accuracy you can expect from someone who deals in hearsay. The most credible witnesses won't talk to reporters. > I guess that's the job of a journalist to ensure what you are publishing is true. Informants are afforded credibility. The job of the informant is to ensure what they're informing on is true. In any supply chain attack, everybody involved post-compromise is just doing their job. Journalists are not private investigators and it's unfair to expect them to be. We don't condemn doctors when the patients they trust falsely report/induce symptoms with intent to commit disability fraud.

incomingpain 5y ago
>A former employer of mine was the subject of multiple Krebs pieces. Many of the facts he has reported were incorrect. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews There seems to be a correlation that the more you know about a subject, the more likely you think the journalist is simply wrong. I have proposed the idea that if I put together a big enough group of experts. We might have a group of people who can refute journalism in whole. What if 100% or damned near 100% of what journalists claim is untrue. I don't think that's the case, I have many good journalists who are across a spectrum of viewpoints who are good at reporting. In reality, we should hold journalists accountable via Errors and Omissions. Require all journalists to hold E&O insurance. He screwed up, his insurance covers it.
twblalock 5y ago
> Journalists are not private investigators and it's unfair to expect them to be. We don't condemn doctors when the patients they trust falsely report/induce symptoms with intent to commit disability fraud. But we do (and should!) expect journalists to issue retractions if they find out something they reported was incorrect.

incomingpain 5y ago

>A former employer of mine was the subject of multiple Krebs pieces. Many of the facts he has reported were incorrect. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews There seems to be a correlation that the more you know about a subject, the more likely you think the journalist is simply wrong. I have proposed the idea that if I put together a big enough group of experts. We might have a group of people who can refute journalism in whole. What if 100% or damned near 100% of what journalists claim is untrue. I don't think that's the case, I have many good journalists who are across a spectrum of viewpoints who are good at reporting. In reality, we should hold journalists accountable via Errors and Omissions. Require all journalists to hold E&O insurance. He screwed up, his insurance covers it.

twblalock 5y ago

> Journalists are not private investigators and it's unfair to expect them to be. We don't condemn doctors when the patients they trust falsely report/induce symptoms with intent to commit disability fraud. But we do (and should!) expect journalists to issue retractions if they find out something they reported was incorrect.