rosaluxembourgeoise

Fin de régime paranoia also entertains with its unique take on, and inversion of, common practice and ethics, to wit:

"Bercovici referred my questions about the deletion to the magazine's publicist, Perri Dorset. Over the weekend, she said via e-mail that the posting had been removed until Gladwell responded to Bercovici. Today, Dorset waved away additional questions, stating in an e-mail, "We have not heard back from Malcolm. We also don't talk about pieces before publication-either on-line or in the magazine."

Nick Denton: Gladwell claims he did not know that Bercovici was writing about him, yes? So is Gladwell implying that Bercovici made a misleading claim about attempting to contact him comment?

God.

rosaluxembourgeoise

Now go back into that paragraph and substitute the word "Internet" for the word "God."

Mike_Jahn

The hair-trigger preemptory response to imagined slights.

The obsessive need to micromanage petty, elusive problems.

All the tics and reactions common to a small Latin American dictatorship two or three days before someone lobs a grenade into the cafeteria at the U.S. embassy and the rebel forces start shelling the presidential palace.

Hamud Ibn Hamud

wretched_of_the_mirth

Shame there isn't a web-based tool to auto-fact-check any piece of text (as there is for plagiarism). But imagine such a tool existed: let's hear guesses about the press's error rate and how Gladwell's own error rate would compare. Here are mine:

Overall press error rate: 33.33333%
Malcolm Gladwell error rate: 66.66667%

But there's a difference between unintentional errors and ones that reporters insist on making.

ifstone

MrInBetween

Mike_Jahn

if_i_only_had_a_heart

mitchel_stevens