[cagey_vet]

breathless exclamations of relative ease of exploit execution is just subjective editorial flair, for those keeping track of the well-intended neophyte observations. The entire thing comes off subjective. In modern journalism courses don't they preach about avoiding that pitfall? Unless everyone in tech writing wants to be Hunter Thompson by breaking all the rules.

[grzm]

I think it's more likely that many authors of on-line publications don't have journalism degrees or haven't taken courses. The web has made it easier for anyone to publish, which is great. People have been able to hone their writing skills and get feedback (through eyeballs and clicks) on how to increase their audience. However, that incentive alone doesn't necessarily align with quality.

As professional journalism has moved from print to on-line, they've been struggling to figure out how to sustain their businesses. The on-line incentives for eyeballs/clicks is now strong for them as well, and they've understandably hired people who have proven to attract online readers. Early on it was clearer to identify the "blog" section of an online publication, but that's become increasingly difficult.

Stray thought: Is there a resource out there to view the credibility of stories by byline?

[hilop]

Modern journal doesn't involve "courses".

Copying Hunter Thompson , initiating "gonzo" style, has been the rage for quite a while -- it's more fun than being honest and careful