3 ms·
Or they just don't understand the difference between a DDoS on a website and an actual, effective cyberattack on an airport. Never assume malice etc
by tcmb 4y ago
Or they just don't understand the difference between a DDoS on a website and an actual, effective cyberattack on an airport.
Never assume malice etc
- humanistbot 4y agoSure, it could be either malice or ignorance. But when there is a strong incentive to misrepresent this (views, ads), they lose the benefit of the doubt. Plus, if it is ignorance, then they have no business reporting on cyberattacks.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoThey might not. But if they want to earn the title of journalist then they should find out. Ignorance or negligence is not a valid excuse. In short, there's no excuse for this from a source that has this level of impact.
- Dudeman112 4y ago>Never assume malice etc The assumption isn't "malice", it's "profit"
- bee_rider 4y agoJournalism is a profession, not a gig, the practitioners have a professional responsibility to be able to report on their topic. Representing yourself as a professional while being ignorant is malice.
- kortilla 4y agoNo, that’s not how malice works. >Representing yourself as a professional while being ignorant is malice. Being a professional just means you make a living doing it so you’re good enough to get paid. Nothing more, nothing less.
- bee_rider 4y agoSuppose that's why expressions like "the work was very professionally done" tell us nothing about the quality of the work, and professional societies are just clubs of random people that meet down at the pub.