Journalism is no more based on the idea of telling a perfect truth (rather than a "near" one) than software development is based on shipping bug-free software. The AP doesn't fire photographers for failing to relate a perfect truth, but rather for deliberately deceiving its readership. Like software development, journalism is a system of processes aimed at producing the best approximation of a practically unobtainable perfect outcome.
> Journalism is no more based on the idea of telling a perfect truth (rather than a "near" one) than software development is based on shipping bug-free software.
Nobody expects journalists to be perfect. But doing your best to ship bug-free software that does what your users want, while sometimes failing to detect a bug, is not the same as shipping software that does something subtly different from what your users want, in order to serve your own interests. I think the journalistic equivalent of the latter is what the author of the article is accusing journalism of (and I tend to agree).
> The AP doesn't fire photographers for failing to relate a perfect truth, but rather for deliberately deceiving its readership.
How is photoshopping the photographer's own shadow out of a picture that's not even about the photographer in the first place (so the shadow has no significance in the picture, it's just a distraction from the actual content) "deliberately deceiving" the people who look at it?
I don't see how all journalism is not inherently self-serving to the journalists' own narratives to a non-zero degree. I don't believe you can prevent that. Glenn Greenwald did a good job making the point in an interview from 2016: https://current.org/2016/03/glenn-greenwald-on-the-adversari... starting at "So is it your position..."
> shipping software that does something subtly different from what your users want
You mean like software that doesn’t do exactly whet the user wants, but the user doesn’t realize it until they buy the product and then start realizing that the implementation requires more effort and customization than they were led to believe? Because that happens all the time, it’s practically the core business model of enterprise software sales since they also earn a consulting/support fee for helping with the implementation and customization.
I don't think photoshopping to eliminate irrelevant content is malfeasance. All the way back to the days of film, photographers have cropped images, changed exposures, depth of field (aperture), focal length, "dodged" or "burned" different areas of the print, all to achieve a better presentation of the main subject of the photo.
The Bloomberg editors stand with the reporters, so no apology. Besides some angry press statements, there hasn't been detailed evidence that, without a shadow of a doubt, disproves Bloomberg's story.
That's not good enough. If this was real, Supermicro motherboards with that "feature" should have been found by now, and the technical press should have scanning electron microscope pictures of what's inside that chip.
> Supermicro motherboards with that "feature" should have been found by now
Maybe it already has, and the problem is so serious they do not want the public to know how badly they fucked up. The tech companies aren't immune to catastrophic PR.
