That's not at all what I meant.
You're taking the header far out of context of the body of my comment.
We don't just republish anything from anywhere. We just don't. We -- and everyone else -- thought this report came from NASA proper. That's why we wrote about it, despite taking pains to express deep skepticism about its findings from the very beginning.
So why did we write about it, if it's so far off-base? (No pun intended.) We brought it to your attention because we believed it was amusing -- that word is important -- and curious research conducted by an important, reputable organization. That, clearly, ended up not being the case, thanks to a slip in semantics by the author himself. We swiftly corrected the story and prominently published an apologetic explanation.
Look around SmartPlanet. We write about a lot of things, but "vicious defamatory statements," "the most ridiculous of theses" and "baseless statements presented as fact" are not among them. Everything we write about is substantiated by something, often ongoing research that we link to directly. And if it's not, we either don't write about it or poke holes in it.
Like all good journalists, we're skeptical. Optimistic, but skeptical. This is not a content mill, nor is this a publication that trades on sensationalism. And yes, we do plenty of our own reporting alongside research briefs. Our award-winning video series and our all-original Pure Genius blog are just two examples.
We find the inventors. We understand the advancements. We explain the significance.
If I sound indignant, it's because we, from the beginning, have been trying to add to the quality of discourse around these topics. We wouldn't be true to our name if we didn't. Our reputation? Paramount. And if I haven't convinced you of that with this comment, I likely never will.
