[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.