Unless you have proof that Dvorak was purposely lying, slandering him doesn't make your case any better.
After all, if he screws this one up, he's going to have a very hard time getting respectability and credibility for future articles. That punishment is enough.
Please don't attack the messenger
That phrase has always referred to someone delivering an unwanted truth. There was no "message" here at all, and no "messenger". "Please don't attack the libeler" would be more accurate. That doesn't pack the same pseudo-compassionate punch, does it?
Unless you have proof that Dvorak was purposely lying
That is an impossibly high and irrelevant bar. Gross irresponsibility, incompetence, and total disrespect for the truth aren't enough for you?
slandering him
Wow. That's a rich use of the word "slander", considering the activity this guy was just engaging in.
Seems like a lot of other people do, though, and have strong opinions!
If, on the other hand, he was just being sloppy, then it's a mistake. Let it go. All this name-calling says more about the name-callers than it does about Dvorak.
People who are sloppy and get slammed don't "deserve" it. Screw-ups happen. I'm perfectly willing to let some columnist I don't read the benefit of the doubt of screwing up. In return, I'd appreciate it if people gave me the same benefit of the doubt. This is just common sense.
Look at it this way -- isn't this an excellent example of the net publishing bad information and then correcting itself almost immediately? With any other story, people would be talking about how much better we have things now than when we only had printed media.
Your personal ignorance does not mean you are correct to chide those who do know of Dvorak and his history.
Let's grant your point. Then still, why call it out? Let's suppose Dvorak is the worst jackass in the history of jackasses. Let's also suppose that anybody who knew Dvorak would agree that he is the epitome of jackasses. Proper response: "Remember when Dvorak did X, Y, and Z? I'm not sure what the situation is now, but this looks like it might be one of those situations."
Why get so emotional? It's just a web column, for chrissakes. The truth was outed almost immediately. Whatever damage happened happened for about 2 hours. Do you guys live some kind of perverse emotional life through these tech columnists? If so, get a life already. Words are cheap. That's why we always ask for links, and double-check sources.
When you call somebody a name, you're attempting to shut down anything useful they might have to offer in the future. It's the ultimate ad hominem argument: no need to listen to anything Dvorak says because he's an X.
I think it's completely idiotic to go there. Everybody has something useful to offer at some time or another.
In those Frankenstein movies there always was a large crowd with torches and pitchforks who stormed the castle looking for the monster. I'm sure there was some guy in the back who was going, "Hey guys, couldn't we just send the sheriff? Why all the yelling and panic?"
I feel like that guy.
And during those two hours this story was everywhere. Remember the old saying: a lie can run halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.
Please demonstrate this is the case. All I see is a guy who thought he had a hot story, made a few calls, and published before he got all the facts. Looks like the confusion in school names is what led to this.
Where is all of this terrible negligence you mention?
Of those 2 facts, Dvorak failed to correctly verify one of them and then drew a false conclusion based on that and screwed up the second one. That would be journalistic negligence from anyone. But when you add Dvorak having admitted to writing stories just to generate traffic (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9838/) you get a picture of a dishonest man.
from the article: "But I was able to verify Kundra's degree with just a few phone calls in under two hours."
If your going to publish something so incendiary, you really must do your homework.
So now he's got to live with this Charlie Foxtrot for the rest of his life. Digging down into the sewer with him and throwing it around some doesn't help anybody.
What's your number? Three? Four?
Guy might end up losing his job and being a mockery the rest of his life and all you've got to offer is to pile on? What is this, kindergarten?
One way to not risk your job and reputation is to be very careful prior to publishing lies about people in widely circulated publications.
Let's be clear: Dvorak isn't just some guy, he's a professional troll. We're not picking him out of obscurity and pantsing him in front of his classmates. He chooses to be a writer, to push people's buttons, to publish inflammatory material without doing any kind of research. If he loses his job, it'll only be because this is somehow the first time he's actually crossed the line into libel, and if he's a mockery for the rest of his life, he's in the same state he was a week ago, except now maybe some political junkies are in on it, too.
Would you argue he's just "blogging" so fact-based reporting is optional?
Dvorak was pushing the limits of responsible journalism (similar to TechCrunch at times).
We agree on one thing: his credibility is taking a huge hit, rightfully so.
But calling somebody a jackass is not.
There are many other examples: http://www.google.com/search?q=john+dvorak+idiot or http://www.google.com/search?q=john+dvorak+moron
Anyone who "screws up" quite a lot I think it is fair to call him a jackass. ie, Arrington
Yes. The source may prompt more fact-checking about the reported facts than some other source, but as I have said before,
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=555734
Consider the radical possibility that any person you disagree with in general might accidentally make a correct factual statement in a particular case.