Bad News From Santa Rosa Blue Hole
- Thread starter reddiver970
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Is Jack Hammer actually Jack Hammer's name? You're possibly citing a fictitious source when you do that. Why not contact the person, establish who you're quoting from and ask? Other than laziness, I can't see a reason.
BDSC
Contributor
Jack Hammer
Contributor
A news article is expressly there for people to read and share, the more it gets shared and talked about the more successful it is at its purpose. Online forums are conversations. While public and often available for many to see, they are not always intended to be read by those outside of the forum membership or those interested in the forum topic. Condolence messages in a Passing thread are intended for the friends and family of the deceased, not as fluff to spice up a rewritten story from a "journalist" so they can build up their portfolio.
WarrenZ
The Ultimate Bad Example
Just one more reminder that what is said of the internet is out there for all to see.
scagrotto
Contributor
That's almost certainly about the guide line that both divers were using (and presumably maintaining a connection with), and pretty typical of what happens when a reporter who doesn't know much about a subject gets information from somebody who knows a lot. The knowledgeable person says something, perhaps not including extra detail for those who aren't familiar with the subject, and the other person misunderstands and reaches a conclusion that makes sense to them. One of the things I've learned from my years of dry caving is that when you want a reporter to get information about cave or caving right you need to be very careful and very thorough with the things you say. I'm sure that's true about any subject that a reporter isn't familiar with.
I'm also sure that detail means very little one way or the other to the vast majority of readers, most of whom probably think only crazy people would try such a thing.
The article may have quoted from a source posting with pseudonym, but unless SB is creating fake users the source isn't fictitious. Other than an (absurd) argument that calling it a "tragic loss" is a factual claim that needs to be verified, how is there a problem with using the quote even if it had been posted anonymously? It wasn't necessary to the story, but it's clearly related to the previous paragraph about the scuba community mourning the loss. Based on the rest of the article I'm guessing it only got its own paragraph because the reporter apparently has some reason to not group multiple related sentences into a single paragraph, which is a concept I believe I learned in elementary school.
It's a matter of professionalism. You're not getting paid to do a specific job of vetting facts before you post.
... because the journalist was lazy and had nothing else to insert.
Don't get me wrong... I like the attention, but I wish it were something a bit more positive. There's a whole lot of good, I mean GREAT posted here. I get the idea that they had to meet a word quota and we were handy. It's hardly worth more bandwidth than that.
Similar threads
