> Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is something in place > within the press community. Maybe it's just not being enforced with > regards to technical stuff, because they don't have the knowledge > and resources to do fact checks?
the fact is if its technical stuff like. "...website brought down by sending email...." or something like that is fine if it comes form a journalist with a non-cs/it background. Differentiation between email and http request is unclear. but he/she could have done some homework and read reports from symantec or any other anti-virus company to know what exactly happens. but saying something like ".... Two years ago, SCO claimed that it owned more than 800,000 lines of the system which had always been available for free and to anyone since its invention in 1991.." is lazy journalism. What does it take to findout the day when sco started making accusations ? do people need a technical knowledge to do that? as someone noted on the /. fourm its not a biased writer but rather a lazy novel writer.
