Using words like "misrepresenting" and "disingenuous" and "dishonest" attaches serious implications to the facts of the matter: "dropped out" was not the best phrasing. As Hanlon's Razor puts it, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by [ignorance]". Why does the three sentences about Alexis need thorough researching, when the vast majority of the post is about Reddit; an entity that Alexis left years ago?
It reminds me of grammar arguments on the internet; people don't like what she says, so they find some easily arguable but minor flaw in the text to jump on.
It might not be malice. It may be ignorance. It's definitely irresponsible.
Those three sentences do not need thorough researching. Maybe she just needs to write a quick email to Alexis for a comment/confirmation (or omit the 3 sentences). Or are bloggers not journalists, anymore?
Also, I didn't attack the premise of this article at all, so don't lump me in with that crowd—I just think that the author does a disservice to her premise/argument. For what it's worth, I agree with the high-level sentiment of the article (though not all of the details).
Of course they're not. For better and for worse, bloggers are not and never have been journalists in any useful sense of those two words. Blogs do, however, fill some of the same niches that used to be the exclusive purview of journalistic channels, such as news curation and commentary.
If you're expecting blogs to match the rigor of journalism, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. I should note, however, that blogs are much more of a two-way street; they're more likely to get things wrong, but they're also more likely to be corrected when that happens.
It reminds me of grammar arguments on the internet; people don't like what she says, so they find some easily arguable but minor flaw in the text to jump on.