Bad News From Santa Rosa Blue Hole

[JohnnyC]

While I love the attention given SB in some regards, I find their mining of us a bit unethical or lazy.

Would be nice if they'd throw some bucks at you for the hassle.

 

[redacted]

While I love the attention given SB in some regards, I find their mining of us a bit unethical or lazy.

A good investigator or researcher uses all available legal resources. Nothing unethical or lazy about that.

 

[The Chairman]

Is Jack Hammer actually Jack Hammer's name? You're possibly citing a fictitious source when you do that. Why not contact the person, establish who you're quoting from and ask? Other than laziness, I can't see a reason.

 

[BDSC]

While I love the attention given SB in some regards, I find their mining of us a bit unethical or lazy.

But how is that vastly different from those of us on SB who link to a news story and publish it here like we have on this very thread? Aren't we "mining" what they have done?

 

[Jack Hammer]

But how is that vastly different from those of us on SB who link to a news story and publish it here like we have on this very thread? Aren't we "mining" what they have done?

A news article is expressly there for people to read and share, the more it gets shared and talked about the more successful it is at its purpose. Online forums are conversations. While public and often available for many to see, they are not always intended to be read by those outside of the forum membership or those interested in the forum topic. Condolence messages in a Passing thread are intended for the friends and family of the deceased, not as fluff to spice up a rewritten story from a "journalist" so they can build up their portfolio.

 

[WarrenZ]

Just one more reminder that what is said of the internet is out there for all to see.

 

[Hawkwood]

With all due respect to SB and the Users, quoting something found on an online Forum for a news article seems a bit weak to me.

 

[scagrotto]

including misinformation like "The two divers were connected underwater with a cord,"

That's almost certainly about the guide line that both divers were using (and presumably maintaining a connection with), and pretty typical of what happens when a reporter who doesn't know much about a subject gets information from somebody who knows a lot. The knowledgeable person says something, perhaps not including extra detail for those who aren't familiar with the subject, and the other person misunderstands and reaches a conclusion that makes sense to them. One of the things I've learned from my years of dry caving is that when you want a reporter to get information about cave or caving right you need to be very careful and very thorough with the things you say. I'm sure that's true about any subject that a reporter isn't familiar with.

I'm also sure that detail means very little one way or the other to the vast majority of readers, most of whom probably think only crazy people would try such a thing.

possibly citing a fictitious source

The article may have quoted from a source posting with pseudonym, but unless SB is creating fake users the source isn't fictitious. Other than an (absurd) argument that calling it a "tragic loss" is a factual claim that needs to be verified, how is there a problem with using the quote even if it had been posted anonymously? It wasn't necessary to the story, but it's clearly related to the previous paragraph about the scuba community mourning the loss. Based on the rest of the article I'm guessing it only got its own paragraph because the reporter apparently has some reason to not group multiple related sentences into a single paragraph, which is a concept I believe I learned in elementary school.

 

[Lorenzoid]

With all due respect to SB and the Users, quoting something found on an online Forum for a news article seems a bit weak to me.

On the Internet, nobody knows (if) you're a dog.

Quoting a user name is not journalism.

 

[The Chairman]

But how is that vastly different from those of us on SB

It's a matter of professionalism. You're not getting paid to do a specific job of vetting facts before you post.

Based on the rest of the article I'm guessing it only got its own paragraph because

... because the journalist was lazy and had nothing else to insert.

Don't get me wrong... I like the attention, but I wish it were something a bit more positive. There's a whole lot of good, I mean GREAT posted here. I get the idea that they had to meet a word quota and we were handy. It's hardly worth more bandwidth than that.