More examples of journalistic laziness.

Now that is has come to pass already, I kind of wish I had written this article up last night. But, I decided the content is still pertinent.

I stumbled across this article last night as I was about to go to sleep. What struck me most was a few simple things:

• The post did not seem "dubious" in any way.
• Carriers have some control over the roll out process of OS upgrades.
• Carriers would be the first to receive target release dates and updates if the deliverable date changed.
• The presumption that Carriers would know the final name of the OS far ahead of schedule is actually not likely. Nor even generally necessary.
• The official release on the name change to Android 10 was only fairly recent, and thus it is unlikely that internal documents would be updated.
• The author CLEARLY did no research.
• The same claim was backed up by, not only multiple Rogers customers,
• But, it was also backed up by customers of other Canadian telecom companies.

What really stuck out though was the dick move to end the article on a section titled "Is The Android 10 Leak Real?" which basically does nothing to validate the claim one way or another. And in fact goes out of it's way to basically state that even if true, it should have been out already anyway. Which is basically just saying, even if true, it could just be a lucky guess.

While I had been following this, the first time I came across it, my thoughts were basically, a Rogers rep has no reason to lie about this. It is likely to reflect more poorly on them if a lie. So, at the time, when there was only a single reported instance I wrote it off as "possibly true". The rep could have just been relaying preliminary information they believed to be true.

But, as more reports came in from both Rogers and other cell providers, it became increasingly less likely that the leak was a fake.

And while it would be possible for the leak to be accurate and still not deliver, by all accounts there was no reason to call the leak dubious. Especially not by the time that the article above had been posted.