Please consider that the condescension could be perceived and not intended. I know personally that Bob McMillan is not the kind of journalist to make such insinuations.
Everybody makes mistakes and this isn't a huge one, but part of making mistakes is getting called on it.
Now there's a classic constitutional issue. The law is pretty clear on this -- if you want to offer a quack medical treatment and you advertise it, you might be arrested for misleading the public and/or practicing medicine without a license. But if you put the same words in a book or magazine article that's not an advertisement, you're safe.
If a writer plagiarizes, he might be sanctioned by his employer or gain a bad public reputation. If a writer libels someone, he could be sued in civil court. But writing is safe in ways that most things aren't, based on the idea that we should allow free expression of ideas.
A writer can say virtually anything in a book or a publication that's not an advertisement, not part of commerce, and not expected to be a reflection of fact.
When I say "hold accountable" here, I'm just talking about criticizing the writers for the implications of what they say, even if they didn't necessarily mean to imply that.
It's not a constitutional issue. It's not a legal issue. It's not an issue of anything you mentioned here.
That expression isn't open to interpretation -- it means made to suffer consequences that result from prior actions.
> It's not a constitutional issue. It's not a legal issue. It's not an issue of anything you mentioned here.
It's all those things. You don't get to define words any way you please in a public forum -- even though you certainly have the right to express yourself any way you please.
"(of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible"
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
"Someone who is accountable is completely responsible for what they do and must be able to give a satisfactory reason for it"
From Merriam-Webster:
"subject to giving an account"
Where the relevant definition of "account" is:
"a statement explaining one's conduct"
I can't find any definition in any dictionary that says it's only about legal consequences.
That horse you're on is mighty tall, you may wish to come down with the rest of us.
Only about legal consequences? No one made that claim. But being held accountable is certainly a legal term.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/accountability/
Quote: "Under state laws, a person must reach a certain age before they can be held accountable in both civil and criminal matters."
How hard is that, for someone with an open mind?
And do you really downvote other people's posts solely because they try to correct your misuses of English? You do see the risk, don't you? That you will remain ignorant forever?
I'm not downvoting your posts. Stop jumping to conclusions.
You're right—the article itself is considerably better. It's quite noticeable, in fact. Pity the author can't just tell us what he would have called it.
(It's a moot point in the current case, though, because this story had a full airing on HN yesterday.)
Indeed there are many fingerprints on a story even if it has only one name on the byline. Increasingly so in a world where there are "production" help from folks who are not strictly editorial (adding image assets or changing things for SEO purposes, for example).
> Pity the author can't just tell us what he would have called it.
Wired uses WordPress and WordPress creates a title slug on first draft save. It appears McMillan likely started with "The White House Dickerson" before it was sanitized, since that slug doesn't seem modified for keywording purposes (http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/sanitize_title)
Yes, I understand he probably didn't have final approval over the title. However, Wired as an organization is responsible for the presentation and content of the article; and the impression I came away with was one of Wired, not of Bob McMillan.