But how shocked are you that it turned out also not to be pictures of fireworks (seeing as you posted the article that speculated facebook photos were to blame)?
Not at all shocked. I liked Declan's post because it posited a more plausible scenario than the article's "FBI is monitoring my Googles". Declan posted it for the same reason. You apparently don't follow him on Twitter and expect his Google+ feed to give you full insight into his thoughts. Oops.
I anticipate any number of people will try to jump on the fact that the FBI didn't literally respond to a Facebook photo and have decided to simply quietly and not-so-quietly make fun of those people.
Here's my original post, which I stand by 1000% now, which is easy to do since it's been entirely vindicated:
To be clear, I stood by that post as well (and was really surprised at all the flack you were getting for making a wildly rational argument). I just thought Declan's post only added even more valueless speculation to the conversation.
If that's the takeaway you got from it, you probably needed the Twitter context to make sense of the point he was making. I suspect that's why he wrote it on G+ and not on CNet.
Or, maybe it was because his corporate overlords at CBS, where he is a political correspondent (spit!) would have had him skinned if he wrote it on their masthead.
Yeah, if there was more context needed I certainly didn't have it. Specifically it was the fact that he said pretty clearly that authorities visiting after viewing a facebook photo of fireworks was "the most likely conclusion", which irked me.
I thought that statement was irresponsible for a reporter to make in the face of so few verified facts about the incident or circumstances that preceded it.
Sorry, my second sentence made it sound like my response was intended to be snarky, but I in fact understand where you're coming from and don't expect you to have the full context for random G+ stories.
Again: when someone writes something on their G+ page, it's hard to accuse them of not meeting journalistic standards; it's a G+ page. If McCullagh wanted that post to be on CNet, it would have been on CNet.
Oookay, now I see what you meant. I guess I get that point but don't find it reasonable in today's age of the collision of journalism and social media. A G+ page that identifies you as a professional journalist is likely to be treated and interpreted by readers as a source of journalism. I suspect if Declan was an enterprise Java developer the post wouldn't have been paid much attention, or up-voted. Apologies for dragging this out though, I think my confusion caused us both to belabor our points :)
Hm. I tried to be careful when I used the word "hoax"; for instance, I described it elsewhere as an "inadvertent hoax". But I'll go farther here: I think the story was dishonest and deliberately sensationalized. Yeah, I'll call it a hoax. Sure.
How do you figure? Did the JTTF interrogate her husband and search their house? Did they ask about pressure cookers? Are they now saying it was because of a web search that they initiated the interrogation and search? Yes or no?
To say this is a hoax is to say these things did not happen. What is your evidence of this?
No, "the JTTF" didn't interrogate her husband. The Suffolk PD did, because the employer called them. It's hard to respond to the other questions because they're premised on the first.
Is your assertion that she is lying when she says they identified themselves as part of the JTTF which is overseen by the FBI and includes local police force members throughout the US whose salary and expenses they pay while working on JTTF tasks? Or are you saying that they lied to her in saying they were JTTF.
You are very clearly stating here "'the JTTF' didn't interrogate her husband", meaning that she is lying when she says they told her that or they told her that and were lying. Please cite your evidence of this claim.
Yes. I'm saying she's being dishonest about what happened. Also, you continue to use the term "the JTTF", which is misleading. The FBI has formally denied being involved in the interview, and the Suffolk PD just announced that they were behind it. It's the blog author (and you) who invoked (and now continue to invoke) the FBI, and to invoke "the JTTF".
"The JTTF" didn't interrogate anyone. Detectives from the Suffolk County PD, who may also be members of a JTTF and identified themselves as such, received a tip and followed up on it. What's misleading is trying to say the investigation was JTTF-lead, VS a local pd investigation who's outcome may be shared with the JTTF.
Comments
But how shocked are you that it turned out also not to be pictures of fireworks (seeing as you posted the article that speculated facebook photos were to blame)?
Not at all shocked. I liked Declan's post because it posited a more plausible scenario than the article's "FBI is monitoring my Googles". Declan posted it for the same reason. You apparently don't follow him on Twitter and expect his Google+ feed to give you full insight into his thoughts. Oops.
I anticipate any number of people will try to jump on the fact that the FBI didn't literally respond to a Facebook photo and have decided to simply quietly and not-so-quietly make fun of those people.
Here's my original post, which I stand by 1000% now, which is easy to do since it's been entirely vindicated:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141113
To be clear, I stood by that post as well (and was really surprised at all the flack you were getting for making a wildly rational argument). I just thought Declan's post only added even more valueless speculation to the conversation.
If that's the takeaway you got from it, you probably needed the Twitter context to make sense of the point he was making. I suspect that's why he wrote it on G+ and not on CNet.
Or, maybe it was because his corporate overlords at CBS, where he is a political correspondent (spit!) would have had him skinned if he wrote it on their masthead.
Yeah, if there was more context needed I certainly didn't have it. Specifically it was the fact that he said pretty clearly that authorities visiting after viewing a facebook photo of fireworks was "the most likely conclusion", which irked me.
I thought that statement was irresponsible for a reporter to make in the face of so few verified facts about the incident or circumstances that preceded it.
Sorry, my second sentence made it sound like my response was intended to be snarky, but I in fact understand where you're coming from and don't expect you to have the full context for random G+ stories.
Again: when someone writes something on their G+ page, it's hard to accuse them of not meeting journalistic standards; it's a G+ page. If McCullagh wanted that post to be on CNet, it would have been on CNet.
Oookay, now I see what you meant. I guess I get that point but don't find it reasonable in today's age of the collision of journalism and social media. A G+ page that identifies you as a professional journalist is likely to be treated and interpreted by readers as a source of journalism. I suspect if Declan was an enterprise Java developer the post wouldn't have been paid much attention, or up-voted. Apologies for dragging this out though, I think my confusion caused us both to belabor our points :)
You still stand by the part where you accused her of perpetrating a hoax?
Hm. I tried to be careful when I used the word "hoax"; for instance, I described it elsewhere as an "inadvertent hoax". But I'll go farther here: I think the story was dishonest and deliberately sensationalized. Yeah, I'll call it a hoax. Sure.
I'll go along with "deliberately sensationalised." That's her job, after all. "Dishonest?" I think she believed what she wrote, when she wrote it.
She did perpetuate a hoax.
How do you figure? Did the JTTF interrogate her husband and search their house? Did they ask about pressure cookers? Are they now saying it was because of a web search that they initiated the interrogation and search? Yes or no?
To say this is a hoax is to say these things did not happen. What is your evidence of this?
No, "the JTTF" didn't interrogate her husband. The Suffolk PD did, because the employer called them. It's hard to respond to the other questions because they're premised on the first.
Is your assertion that she is lying when she says they identified themselves as part of the JTTF which is overseen by the FBI and includes local police force members throughout the US whose salary and expenses they pay while working on JTTF tasks? Or are you saying that they lied to her in saying they were JTTF.
You are very clearly stating here "'the JTTF' didn't interrogate her husband", meaning that she is lying when she says they told her that or they told her that and were lying. Please cite your evidence of this claim.
Yes. I'm saying she's being dishonest about what happened. Also, you continue to use the term "the JTTF", which is misleading. The FBI has formally denied being involved in the interview, and the Suffolk PD just announced that they were behind it. It's the blog author (and you) who invoked (and now continue to invoke) the FBI, and to invoke "the JTTF".
"The JTTF" didn't interrogate anyone. Detectives from the Suffolk County PD, who may also be members of a JTTF and identified themselves as such, received a tip and followed up on it. What's misleading is trying to say the investigation was JTTF-lead, VS a local pd investigation who's outcome may be shared with the JTTF.