I may be off-base, but I think it also seems like you're objecting to the idea that the reporter was trying to fill out a narrative in his story. Even (especially?) good journalists look for the "bigger picture" -- otherwise they're just asking people questions and typing their answers. A narrative is what we expect from journalism. Because he changed pieces of Pieter's story to "fit," then yeah, that's a mess, but I'd expect tech people especially would be accepting of the idea that sometimes you have to leave out some of the details of something complicated.
Filling out a narrative to match a story is very similar to pursuing a hypothesis in bench science: If the material doesn't actually support the perspective, then the duty of the reporter - writer or scientist - is to construct a piece which accommodates the genesis, development, revision, and conclusion of a story. One that can be reproduced. If one of the main subjects of a piece comes out guns blazing decrying the use of their Good Faith contributions, then those are genuine compiler errors. Something doesn't add up. If the code - or the composition - can't pass muster then there are inherent flaws.
I will disclose that my view of Journalism is tainted by the Best and Worst practitioners of the craft: Ben Franklin, Mark Twain, and Hunter S. Thompson. I'm no stranger to contortions and line-blurring of Journalism and Literary License, of which this situation met almost none of my internal checklist criteria. If anything I ground my perspectives in the antagonistic yet passionate approach of Samuel Johnson when it comes to criticism...homeboy had the salt to even call out his benefactor in his Dictionary...
> After journalism, Glass earned a law degree, magna cum laude,[citation needed] at Georgetown University Law Center. He then passed the New York State bar examination in 2000, but the Committee of Bar Examiners refused to certify him on its moral fitness test, citing ethics concerns related to his plagiarism.[3] He later abandoned his efforts to be admitted to the bar in New York.[22]
Wow, it never occurred to him before enrolling and shelling out tens of thousands of dollars that he might not get to practice? Sure, most law school grads don't become attorneys but based on his subsequent court battles it seems like he wanted to.
Also: kinda funny that someone included "magna cum laude" in his wikipedia article, but a wikipedia editor challenged that claim requires evidence, and it's not satisfied. Then again, would we believe it if he published a photograph of his degree?
https://www.scriptrevolution.com/scripts/do-unto-others
Part of Andy Fastow's image rehab was, of all things, talking ethics.
http://www.tuck.dartmouth.edu/news/articles/andrew-fastow-fo...
I don't think that's a valid wikipedia citation. From Wikipedia's Verifiability page [1]:
> Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_c...
The first is what set me off so terribly at Avi Selk, formerly of the Dallas Morning News, and now at the Washington Post, based on his framing of the Ahmed Mohamed "Clock Boy" story at first [1]. Here's the admission:
>I simplified Pieter's story to fit the narrative I thought I saw. I was blinded by what I thought sounded like a good story.
...which is an admission I think is about on par with Stephen Glass-level of integrity, and should be a footer on any resume sent out to potential editors in the future, enjoined with the second:
>Pieter implied in this comment that I didn't write the truth and that I am embody what is wrong with journalism today. He compared my story to "fake news." I think this is a stretch.
...which basically shows there is an integral lack of self-critical thinking, because the first quote is essentially an admission that the second quote can't bear to live with.
Again, I look at these situations as an outsider; I am grateful to not be involved in the business of "reporting" or "journalism" because in modern times I think they have very little inherent credibility prima face. Major news trends and outlets are running with emotionally charged, "I feel this is the story" which isn't journalism. I know when I'm writing an emotionally based hypothesis and try to frame it as such - unfounded speculation, idle musings...
This back and forth is unfortunate but enlightening in how there are a whole lot more details to a story than what one person believes is "the right story" by way of writing. I suppose that's why "marketing" and "journalism" are kind of sort of screwing each other without second thought.
[1] https://artplusmarketing.com/the-clock-boy-critical-thinking...