Originally Posted by
lwildernorva
Maybe got (or did get) the names Rubiano, Schlappig, Jablon, Daraius Dubash, Westreich, Aucello, Eleff, Oren Wachstock, Arianna Rebolini, and Finken correct but made an understandable mistake in misspelling Petersen by using Peterson instead? Really? That's the nit you're going to pick in an article that appears verifiable in many other respects? One open to public comment where Randy himself could correct the article if the quote regarding $500,000 was wrong?
I'm beginning to think eponymous_coward may have pegged this corner of FT correctly. . .
I think you're barking up the wrong tree with regard to
Canarsie's post and the complaints about tone and personal commentary. His posts here on this forum have always seemed polite, civil, and balanced to me.
While I personally don't dismiss the article's content out of hand just due to the spelling error, it generally doesn't look good for a writer to misspell the name of one of the primary people they interview/quote for the article. It can make the reader question what other details the author glossed over or botched. You're right though that it can easily be corrected by any of the quoted individuals if necessary.
That said it's actually a somewhat interesting read and quotes numerous bloggers that are well known here. It delves into some of the disputes over how much info is posted on blogs, for example. No real new info for those of us who have been around it for awhile.
I thought this quote was somewhat ironic considering the content of some (not all) BA bloggers:
Peterson (sic) argues that the industry has turned into a business just like any other, but believes readers need to be smart about which sites they frequent: "If five of the ten blog posts are about credit cards to sign up for, you’re reading the wrong blog. If eight out of ten posts are about how to fly first class, you’ve found a good blogger."
[emphasis added]