[thwest]

Being disingenuous or dishonest would require knowledge on her part that she was misrepresenting. Given that the event description originally included Alexis, and the obvious chain of miscommunication above, is it not a reasonable assumption that Rebecca was simply misinformed?

[Locke1689]

This article was clearly written post-email exchange. At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending and that the idea that he would in the first place was simply a communications breakdown.

The author is now being deliberately disingenuous.

[nollidge]

> At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending

How so? Farhad is not Rebecca. She may be, as we speak, still completely unaware of Farhad's e-mail exchange with Alexis.

[Locke1689]

Perhaps. It seems strange that one would write an article without checking on this fact, and personally I don't believe I will frequent this person's writing again, but it is certainly far more forgivable than dishonesty.

[potatolicious]

"Hey Farhad, whatever happened to Alexis at the panel?"

"Oh, uh, it fell through."

"Oh, ok."

I can think of hundreds of other variations of the same exchange that don't include negligence on the author's part. This isn't a cross examination - which is the price we pay when we gleefully shoved a knife in the chest of real journalism and twisted it hard, and went and partied with blogs afterward.

[Locke1689]

Indeed, but this is also the reason why I mostly frequent technical blogs. I'm afraid I hold people who write about people to a higher standard. When you risk impugning someone's reputation you have a higher responsibility.

[nollidge]

Except real journalism probably never would have covered such an insignificant event. Blogs have a lower barrier to entry, but they also have a lower barrier to entry, if you follow.