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 :)
Comments
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 :)