[newswriter99]

AP style should really push journalists to use the term "cybercriminals" over "hackers".

I'm not the first to say it but the issue is growing, and it's only going to make the public more leery of any tech-minded but innocent kid or professional pentesting adult who uses the term "hacker".

[Avery3R]

Everyone in the industry thinks that anything with "cyber" in the word is either a joke, or is made up by government types that don't really understand computers.

[newswriter99]

I wonder how William Gibson feels about coining "cyberspace" only to live in a world where "cyber" has been reduced to chat room banter and low-brow humor.

[axaxs]

I'm not sure I agree. I think 'hacked' is widely enough known with its negative connotation. If Google posted a blog titled 'We got hacked', everyone would immediately click on it and their heart probably skip a beat. And in English it only makes sense that who hacks, but a hacker.

Regardless of original meaning, as happens with language, words definitions change based on usage and common understanding. I think the 'hacker' battle has been lost, and those examples you listed should use a different term that would be more easily adopted.

[wutbrodo]

Fwiw, I started reading Hacker News ~8 years ago, fresh out of a CS degree and working in tech, and it was my first exposure to a word sense of hacking other than illegal access. I've used the term pretty differently in the years since, but I think the battle for the mainstream meaning of the word was lost long ago.

[surge]

Journalists aren't that bright, they get confused at the difference.

[dang]

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[duxup]

Even in tech circles the terminology is pretty mixed usage wise.

[newswriter99]

Probably worth noting I've been in journalism going on a decade now.

It's a bit too easy to simply write off ALL journalists (no pun intended) as "not that bright".

You may as well say most people aren't that bright. Which would be equally unfair.

Likewise, how can you stick a small-town reporter who covers highschool basketball in the same list as a New York Times reporter with an Ivy League background in economics? Make no mistake, I'm not implying the latter is somehow superior to the former, but there is a huge range between the people who make up the journalism industry.

[stochastic_monk]

Some are brilliant (e.g., Ronan Farrow), but the real point is that they’re speaking to an audience which they’re essentially trying to coddle because the audience isn’t comprised of experts.

[newswriter99]

You're on to something but it's a tiny bit more complicated than that.

Take general assignment reporters for example. They have to learn how to learn.

What I mean is, they're experts on digesting new information. Because they have to write about ANYTHING at a moment's notice, and can't be expected to be experts on everything. THEN they have to write about that topic using only 500 words (or so) to an audience who also probably knows nothing about the topic.

That's a tall order and you shouldn't be surprised reporters get it wrong sometimes.