6 ms·
The article up to that point was great. However, that sentence "But the government of Iran probably could" made the preceding paragraphs appear to be a vehicle
by seanica 14y ago
The article up to that point was great.
However, that sentence "But the government of Iran probably could" made the preceding paragraphs appear to be a vehicle to deliver a meme (like a shaggy-dog story). The rest of the article could have been great, I just stopped reading.
The journalist could have made a neutral statement about what entities have the resources to crack a 768-bit key. But they or their editor chose not to.
Instead, everyone that reads the article will go away with the meme "Iran, if they wanted to, could crack 768-bit keys". Which is, by common definition, propaganda.
It might be unintentional, i.e. the journalist is riding a wave of popular opinion, which they should not do; or it might be an attempt to load the article with link bait.
- willvarfar 14y agoHasn't (hackers in) Iran been behind hacking registrars and intercepting social networks etc? I thought it was a nod to that.
- Evbn 14y agoUnintentional still feeds into the problem. Journos should be extra careful, the have a microphone.
- stanleydrew 14y agoI don't understand. That statement was part of a quote during the interview. A single, continuous quote. Do you consider reporting what someone said to be propaganda. Should the journalist have left out that part of the quote?
- seanica 14y agoGood observation. I stand corrected. I wonder how Zachary Harris would defend the lack of neutrality of that quote, if he was asked to do so.