Errors happen. I mention this because in this day-and-age of social-media toxicity and government corruption, errors are seen as proof that the criticism is illegitimate. No. Your critics will (not 'may' but 'will') make minor errors that does not make their criticisms wrong.
I could be talking about "election security". I hear pushback from election system defenders that the criticisms from infosec have errors. This is true. That doesn't make infosec's position on voting machine weaknesses wrong. The substance is correct, despite minor errors.
I could be talking about Trump's accusation of "Fake News". Sometimes he points to real errors. But what makes the news legitimate is that they correct these errors. Other times he points to things he claims are errors -- but aren't (or at least, there's no proof they are).
I could be talking about the zillions of times I correct journalists, such as this time. It doesn't mean their stories are wrong, just that there is a flaw, often minor.
I always feel bad about making such corrections -- because I often make the same sorts of errors. I'm an expert, but sometimes journalists like @thepacketrat, @dangoodin001, @kimzetter, etc. correct me. Such corrections shouldn't be seen as criticism.
@thepacketrat @dangoodin001 @KimZetter Of course, "fake news" does exist, such as the Bloomberg "SuperMicro" story, or the NYTimes "Baltimore" story, which are flawed to their core, where the newspapers refuse to correct, retract, or admit a mistake. Stories with minor flaws are a different thing than invalid stories.
@thepacketrat @dangoodin001 @KimZetter With that said, title editors suck. The titles put on stories are often beyond the control of the writers of the stories, the titles are often outrageously wrong, and stories get traction because many don't read beyond the title. Title editors are a scourge that must be put down!
