This is powerfully written bad journalism. There's so much wrong with this article.
This paragraph near the beginning sets the tone:
>But repeated searches by a robotic submarine have so far failed to find the source of the pings, which experts say could have come from marine animals or even from the searching ships themselves.
Repeated searches? About 3 days searching of an enormous area, actually
Experts? Which experts?
Then the writer devotes hundreds of words to apparently tearing apart Inmarsat's attempt to estimate the plane's course. You'd think that's what he's doing, from the tone. However, all he is really saying, at great length, is 'Inmarsat won't show all their data to me or my sources'.
Then, after making all that fuss, he even suggests some plausible reasons why Inmarsat won't share the data publicly (such as confidentiality), appears to concede that is reasonable, and then veers off into an vague, irrelevant tangent about the Malaysian government's openness.
3 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 14.8 ms ] threadThis paragraph near the beginning sets the tone:
>But repeated searches by a robotic submarine have so far failed to find the source of the pings, which experts say could have come from marine animals or even from the searching ships themselves.
Repeated searches? About 3 days searching of an enormous area, actually
Experts? Which experts?
Then the writer devotes hundreds of words to apparently tearing apart Inmarsat's attempt to estimate the plane's course. You'd think that's what he's doing, from the tone. However, all he is really saying, at great length, is 'Inmarsat won't show all their data to me or my sources'.
Then, after making all that fuss, he even suggests some plausible reasons why Inmarsat won't share the data publicly (such as confidentiality), appears to concede that is reasonable, and then veers off into an vague, irrelevant tangent about the Malaysian government's openness.