Checkboard, once upon a time, there were no journalists.
Back then there were only reporters, and really good reporters became correspondents.
Back then, at the bottom of the trade, you had the cadet reporter, who trained, worked under, and was mentored by senior reporters. They learned the trade, the art if you will, on-the-job, from the senior paractitioners.
When they got some experience, and if they had demonstrated some smarts, they became reporters and were sent out on their own.
After many years, and if they produced some good stuff, they may have become senior reporters themselves, and if they had shown any significant flair or aptitude for any particular field, they may have become a specialist "subject area reporter", eg "Aviation Correspondent" or similar.
At about the same time, if they were really good, they would have been noticed by the editor or chief editor, and may have been elevated to the level of "investigative reporter" and detailed to delve into some subject(s) of grave concern to the masses - or whatever.
During most of this time (long gone) they would have taken the time to "check their facts" and most stories of any real significance were reasonably complete and well balanced when published The most important thing is, they took the time to prepare a story.
The media took some professional pride in the quality of it's product, and at least did try to get it right. On occasion, they also willingly printed appologies and retractions when they got it wrong.
Today, very little of that happens, none really meaningful anyway.
Today, time has been removed from the equation.
Today, everything is "now".
This has had a number of bad effects.
There is very little time to "gather the real facts", let alone "check those facts" . What is a fact anyway ? How do I tell the difference between fact and bull ? Deadline approaching - have to produce something - so go with what I've got.
Thus, a "story" is printed.
Is it a report ? - No, it is a "one off" story.
Source ? Rarely stated, often unattributed, credibility - questionable.
Subsequent events occur, days, perhaps weeks later, or other information comes to hand, that is/are related to the first story.
What happens ? Is the first report "updated and expanded" or is it treated just as a "new stand alone" ? In most cases, the latter.
In any case, I am sure you get the drift.
The trouble is, today, everyone is a "journalist", just pumping out whatever they can in this "now" world, mostly superficial, with very little analysis or depth to it.
To be blunt, no one "reports any more" they all "journalise".
How often do journalists re-hash each other's material ?
Even worse than that, how may times these days do you see journalists interviewing each other ?
The net result is, most of what you see and read today in the media is, lets be kind, just garbage.
That is why boards like this exist, so that people who are interested in some particular area of activity, can get "inside information" from "behind the scenes", something that "repoters" used to at least try and do, but journalists now rarely even make the pretence of trying to do.
This whole thread, this whole sorry story, Mark-2, proves that the media does not do it's job any more.
This story proves that the media will print garbage, and although obviously not intending to do so, does effectively assist, both bofore and during the fact, these scammers, by lending credibility to them. They themselves have become so desperate for copy that they themselves are easily succered by the self publicists etc et al.
Therefore, MR MODERATOR(S), be mindull of all this, and do not delete "warning" posts, unless there is a really significant and valid reason to do so.