Our favorite web site
<http://www.caramoan.co

The first rule of journalism, really, is “be accurate.” Joseph Pulitzer once, or a thousand times, said famously, “Accuracy! Accuracy! Accuracy!” The second rule of journalism is “get the story.”

There are other rules. There are ethical considerations, though nothing quite so involved as the legal professional canons lawyers deal with. That is not to say journalists are any less ethical.

Gleick was accurate, and he got the story.

If a rule of journalism were “be sure you don’t tick anyone off,” I’d say he failed.

Just sayin’, I’m not sure “crappy journalist” applies, or is accurate.

Nice write up, though, with lots of explanation. Thanks.

You are dismissed.

Your comment back to me is nothing more than an indicment of what you wrote. Look again at the comments you incited from “daedalus2u” and “Rich S”. You’re obviously checking responses to your article; how can you legitimately believe that those comments do not deserve a moderating reply?…yet, mine do?

He also directly stated that the Gleick or a colleague forged the critical path “strategy memo” after illegally obtaining all of the board documentation data. Mr. Bast stated his opinion that the forged memo was created following the realization by Gleick that there was no smoking gun data or documentation in what he illegally obtained by fraud.

Your scenarios “A” and “B” aren’t even quality ancillary scenarios, much less being quality direct illustrations. Your “Scenario A” should have been an investigative journalist working with an inside corporate source, and as a result of obtaining data, wins a Pulitzer. Your “Scenario B” should be what Gleick did…a journalist fakes a deceptively similar email address to a corporate insider, claims to be a corporate insider, requests documentation as a corporate insider, and as a result of NOT finding any damning information, causes a ridiculous forgery to be propounded as an authentic corporate document.

Gleick is a criminal, and I hope he gets prosecuted for corporate espionage.

Way to go in trying to coin new vernacular – “science denialism”, and bringing christians, as well as other subscribers to the belief in intelligent design (“creationists”) into the mix. One can never prove nor deny by scientific method an evolutionary origin of species. This is also true for the theories of the origin of the universe. Just give it a rest and stick to your topic of the day.

Gleick isn’t a journalist, he’s a scientist, here is where the problem arises. Scientists are renowned for being logical, transparent and rigorous. So if a tabloid journalist uncovered this story we would now be discussing Climate change and not the journalist and their actions.

I read an article a few back that discussed how our arrogance towards Climate change is one we must change:

http://william-knight.blogs.com/intelligenthorror/2011/12/the-horror-of-arrogance-will-kill-again-climate-change.html

Personally I’d have a fully bearded Joaquin Phoneix playing Gleick but hey-ho!