Hacker Read

davidw · 2008-10-01 15:21:32

Like I said, it's a sensationalist article. Without knowing the composition and quantities involved, it's impossible to say anything with certainty.

sylvanaar | karma 1 | avg karma 0.06 · | 2012-01-24 09:09:38

Sensationalist article.

knowaveragejoe | karma 2819 | avg karma 2.01 · | 2015-07-04 17:11:10+00:00

The article is seemingly sensationalist for the sake of sensationalism?

weknowbetter | karma 10 | avg karma 0.56 · | 2023-03-15 21:36:37

Yeah this article seems sensational to the point of being deliberately misleading.

ra | karma 3774 | avg karma 3.66 · | 2011-11-03 00:13:14

It's a sensationalist article from a mainstream newspaper.

wtallis | karma 18533 | avg karma 3.1 · | 2017-08-16 20:44:55+00:00

Some mention needs to be made of how unreasonably sensationalized the article is.

TheFiend7 | karma 216 | avg karma 2.48 · | 2019-12-27 17:10:32

Agreed, the article is grossly inaccurate and sensationalized.

jagtesh | karma 458 | avg karma 2.32 · | 2014-03-01 05:30:27+00:00

This article promotes sensationalism at best. It is an opinionated piece mixing facts and fiction to prove a point.

nazgulnarsil | karma 6752 | avg karma 2.15 · | 2013-02-12 02:07:09+00:00

Yes, came here to say this. Article is sensationalist.

paulddraper | karma 16686 | avg karma 1.72 · | 2024-05-10 17:21:20

> Seems like pretty wild, sensationalist reporting here.

One might even say -- "deceptive"

reply

microjesus | karma -14 | avg karma -0.5 · | 2014-03-15 19:00:29

There are no facts available. This is sensationalist piece, move along.

aginn | karma 99 | avg karma 1.01 · | 2012-09-04 14:06:50

this comment is sensationalism

parl_match | karma 1015 | avg karma 4.09 · | 2024-02-07 00:16:44

The claim being made is ludicrous, doesn't hold up to scrutiny or common sense, and the amount of details given is sparse enough to cause disbelief.

If this is real, the article is beyond useless in informing people of what has happened and how it's happened.

reply

sinuhe69 | karma 1020 | avg karma 1.51 · | 2021-03-31 16:09:17+00:00

Yes, I found the piece problematic, too. It surprised me that BBC could publish an uncritical, highly sensational article like this one. No question asked about the legal basis of the operation, nor provided any in-depth background information. It reads like a tabloid story.

rogerbraun | karma 692 | avg karma 5.58 · | 2012-07-30 11:19:14+00:00

I know, but that's not what the submissions says. It feels a bit sensationalized.

seanp2k2 | karma 6618 | avg karma 2.07 · | 2016-11-12 03:59:01+00:00

Yeah, it's pretty disingenuous reporting / [intentional] misunderstanding to sensationalize headlines. I'm sure many dozens of hours of work went into each of these, more likely hundreds. It only impresses people with no familiarity with this type of thing.

arrrg | karma 6593 | avg karma 3.11 · | 2012-12-13 15:18:42+00:00

The article is rubbish if and only if the facts it names are wrong.

It is not standard procedure for newspapers and magazines to name or even link sources. That’s sad, but that’s how it is.

reply

slovette | karma 607 | avg karma 3.37 · | 2018-11-19 19:41:20+00:00

Wow that is the most egregious, sensationalized headline I’ve ever seen. It might as well just be plain dishonest.

TrainedMonkey | karma 3913 | avg karma 3.36 · | 2014-03-15 17:53:48

Article looks sensationalist without any concrete details, however I will reserve my judgement and wait for more information before condemning either party.

rnestler | karma 477 | avg karma 3.59 · | 2020-12-30 04:41:56

True. Which leads us back to that it is a "Misleading sensationalist headline." as somebody else mentioned here.