Hacker News Reader

Comment by incomingpain | Hacker News Reader

The lawsuit, it seems like a grey area. Report on something but then further facts come out and your story is literally outright false. You've been misled and abused by your source. I guess that's the job of a journalist to ensure what you are publishing is true.

Flipside, there's a term named "Krebbed" for a reason. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=krebbed

Krebs has a history of poor journalism to say the least. Frankly, it's best to ignore Krebs. I stopped reading him years ago.

https://itwire.com/business-it-news/security/new-york-times-...

https://itwire.com/business-it-news/security/infosec-researc...

https://itwire.com/business-it-news/security/ex-wp-man-krebs...

3 separate instances where Krebs got it wrong. Seems to happen a little too often.

Seems clear to me, Ubiquiti got Krebbed.

View on HN

> 3 separate instances where Krebs got it wrong. Seems to happen a little too often.

A former employer of mine was the subject of multiple Krebs pieces. Many of the facts he has reported were incorrect. I have no personal stake in getting involved to "set the record straight" and much to lose by doing so.

There's only so much accuracy you can expect from someone who deals in hearsay. The most credible witnesses won't talk to reporters.

> I guess that's the job of a journalist to ensure what you are publishing is true.

Informants are afforded credibility. The job of the informant is to ensure what they're informing on is true. In any supply chain attack, everybody involved post-compromise is just doing their job.

Journalists are not private investigators and it's unfair to expect them to be. We don't condemn doctors when the patients they trust falsely report/induce symptoms with intent to commit disability fraud.

>A former employer of mine was the subject of multiple Krebs pieces. Many of the facts he has reported were incorrect.

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

There seems to be a correlation that the more you know about a subject, the more likely you think the journalist is simply wrong.

I have proposed the idea that if I put together a big enough group of experts. We might have a group of people who can refute journalism in whole. What if 100% or damned near 100% of what journalists claim is untrue.

I don't think that's the case, I have many good journalists who are across a spectrum of viewpoints who are good at reporting.

In reality, we should hold journalists accountable via Errors and Omissions. Require all journalists to hold E&O insurance. He screwed up, his insurance covers it.

> Journalists are not private investigators and it's unfair to expect them to be. We don't condemn doctors when the patients they trust falsely report/induce symptoms with intent to commit disability fraud.

But we do (and should!) expect journalists to issue retractions if they find out something they reported was incorrect.

> I guess that's the job of a journalist to ensure what you are publishing is true.

I remember having a stupid little blog about torrents and filesharing, it was basically a drama blog. People would go on and on about how I had to ensure things were correct and I wasn't a proper journalist because I didn't fact check and stuff. I kept replying, I wasn't a journalist, I was a dude with a blog who people kept telling stuff. So if I was getting that, I sure as hell expect a proper journalist to deal with the fall out if they got it wrong and it cost a company money. Like I would expect a newspaper or tv show to pay out if they cost me money and what not.

>I remember having a stupid little blog about torrents and filesharing, it was basically a drama blog. People would go on and on about how I had to ensure things were correct and I wasn't a proper journalist because I didn't fact check and stuff.

I feel like torrents and filesharing isn't going to need much fact checking. Unless you're perhaps talking about lawsuits or something where you might end up getting sued for your words.

>So if I was getting that, I sure as hell expect a proper journalist to deal with the fall out if they got it wrong and it cost a company money. Like I would expect a newspaper or tv show to pay out if they cost me money and what not.

I personally see Krebs as liable. Many other professions have to keep 'errors and omissions' insurance. Sometimes you just get it wrong. Nobody is perfect, you're going to make mistakes.

> I feel like torrents and filesharing isn't going to need much fact checking. Unless you're perhaps talking about lawsuits or something where you might end up getting sued for your words.

torrentfreak.com is a current example of a long running blog about filesharing/torrent related news that constantly gets things wrong with no fact checking. Their articles are fine when they're about legal cases, new copyright laws, or actions of governments. But when they report on the goings on of non-mainstream streaming sites or private trackers they're almost completely fabricating their articles - believing the words of any "source" that sends them info without doing any sort of validation on it.

> But when they report on the goings on of non-mainstream streaming sites or private trackers they're almost completely fabricating their articles - believing the words of any "source" that sends them info without doing any sort of validation on it.

The thing is, in such a community the only real source is going to be sources. The people often aren't going to admit to things especially if it makes them look bad. The one time I did actually go to check something out which was someone told me the nickserv nick wasn't reserved on a tracker's irc and the services were down so people could use it. They then accused me of stealing passwords instead of checking out if what I was told was true. So they want me to fact check but when I do they complain too.

But overall having to believe sources when it comes to criminal stuff is major thing. You can't do much else. For example, look at most gangland reporting. They'll often be wrong because they're dealing with word of mouth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com