While the author has a point, he is basing it on some improper assumptions. First, a significant attack on the White House, the seat of the Presidency of the U

While the author has a point, he is basing it on some improper assumptions. First, a significant attack on the White House, the seat of the Presidency of the United States, the single most powerful political office in the world would not be "trivial". Regardless of who reported the event, it would be a massive event that would send shock waves around the world for both economic and diplomatic reasons. Until the President's safety was verified, would North Korea attempt to exploit chaos and attack South Korea or would Pakistan see an opportunity to invade Kashmir? So, any reliable source of news -- AP, CNN, heck even FoxNews -- stating that the White House has been attacked would send shockwaves through the world. To me the real observation is how a relatively small act can have a massive impact on the world. The tweet is a small glimpse of the devastation such an attack could have on us. It was a 150 points for a 140 characters, what would live video of the aftermath on CNBC done? It demonstrates the power of asymmetric warfare, and explains a bit of the concern that folks have around "cyber" threats. Hopefully, this incident is a wake up call to Twitter and AP to improve their security.