5 ms·
> As a result of the new information that has been provided to me, I no longer have faith in the veracity of my source or the information he provided to me. I a
by PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> As a result of the new information that has been provided to me, I no longer have faith in the veracity of my source or the information he provided to me. I always endeavor to ensure that my articles are properly sourced and factual.
This is a strange statement given how the details of the FBI investigation have been public for a very long time.
Krebs was fast to report on the initial accusations, but seems to have waited as long as possible to write about the revelations that his source was actually the perpetrator.
> This time, I missed the mark and, as a result, I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to Ubiquiti, and I have decided to remove those articles from my website.
Given that Krebs is a reporter who has historically built a reputation on exposing things and bringing information to light, the brevity and vagueness of this article feels much more like a compromise to settle a lawsuit than typical reporting.
- bombcar 4y agoThis is a failure across many journalists; the inability to view what they're involved with objectively. The amount of scrutiny applied to a source is inversely proportional with how much I want to believe the source.
- IncRnd 4y ago> This is a failure across many journalists Only one journalist was involved here. I think you meant "failing of many journalists" not "failure across many". > The amount of scrutiny applied to a source is inversely proportional with how much I want to believe the source. Why do you disbelieve a source that has been greatly scrutinized? Did you mean "directly proportional"?
- andrewaylett 4y agoThe sense I read from the GP is that if I want to believe the source, I'm less likely to apply strict scrutiny to what they tell me. The more I want to believe, the less I'll dig into what I'm hearing. Some things are just too good to not believe.
- bombcar 4y agoExactly. Krebs did it himself (doubling down on his "source" even as evidence began to come to light that the source was not clean) and we as commentators do also (the original posts are filled with "the software sucks because of X, Y, and Z so this is obviously true).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tcgv 4y ago> The amount of scrutiny applied to a source is inversely proportional with how much I want to believe the source Aka "confirmation bias"
- oaiey 4y agoMaybe part of an informal settlement ;)
- blitzar 4y agoThe lawsuit was close to being settled ... my guess is this is part of the formal settlement.
- throwaway09223 4y agoWhich also explains the delay. You don't post something like this mid-lawsuit unless it's putting issues to rest.
- blitzar 4y agoyup, freezing everything in place when the lawsuit lands is the sensible thing to do. deleting posts (that you refused to delete on previous takedown requests) or writing a retraction is going to be effectively an admission of guilt - and also you cant settle it with a retraction ...