Fair enough. I wasn't implying that a falsehood being "charismatic" makes it OK for a journalist to print it. Sadly, it seems less likely to be checked when it'

Fair enough. I wasn't implying that a falsehood being "charismatic" makes it OK for a journalist to print it. Sadly, it seems less likely to be checked when it's (a) reflective of a genuine truth (such as privileged frat bros getting away with sexual assault; UVa aside, it is a real problem) and (b) something that people want to believe ("we've finally caught one!") That doesn't make it right. One of the problems with the tech press (and, increasingly, the mainstream press) is that it refuses to rise to the higher standard expected of a journalist. For private individuals to inflate their histories and reputations (using charismatic lies) is ethically OK, because one has to do it (paradoxically, and perhaps disturbingly) to gain credibility and trust in a world like Silicon Valley. Journalists, on the other hand, are supposed to cut that shit away and get to the facts. The problem is, with the tech press, that they value access (into a morally bankrupt sub-tract of the private sector, that will shut them out for any coverage other than effusive praise) more than doing their jobs.