What is with the last two paragraphs of this BBC report on the David Wright twitter affair?
"Two recent graduates admitted last July that they had created a fake Twitter account for Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
They broke cover after several newspapers incorrectly reported that Mr Miliband posted a heartfelt tribute to Michael Jackson on his Twitter account following the pop star's death."
These statements are not put in any context, and so the implication is that this sort of online imitiation is what may well have happened in this instance. But that runs contrary to the facts, as the tweet was send from David Wright's genuine twitter account.
The fact is that his excuse - I was hacked and it wasn't me, guv - is extremely questionable. I don't think anyone with the barest knowledge of the facts and of how twitter works believes him. In light of which the BBC report seems sloppy at best and politically motivated at worst.
Why? Check out my initial post for a somewhat unsatisfactory introduction...
Comments are welcome and encouraged, but I reserve the right to excise anything I deem unsuitable, e.g. racism, idiocy or the use of the word "look" at the start of every sentence, à la all Australian and some English cricketers.