Just look at The Register and the Inquirer here in the UK. They’ve earned dis-reputation of ‘gutter press’ or tabloid by some.

I always try to make accurate statements in the post summary (assuming you read in RSS mode without full HTML previews).

The reason I included the headline was the fact that I had found an item on the critical flaw. There was no way to include it as a post and still making it sound informative enough to be worth reading. The second part of the post was appended to fit the context (flaw) and the site’s theme/topic.

Just trying to help.

We can’t trust external (direct) links, so I try to link internally (with context and fragments of relevant text) where it’s possible. In the long term it ensures fewer 404s and limited use of the Web Archive, aka Time Machine, which is unreliable and slow.

Shane and I are committed to making this resource available for a long time to come. This resource not even a target that’s sensitive to factors like acquisitions; not even litigation and C&Ds for all I can tell, particularly because all statements are backed by a lot of external (and factual) sources. Where needed, corrections are being made here, so we cannot be blamed for negligence. The comment system, which embraces no censorship, ensures that everyone gets a voice.

…why devote a blog post to pointing it out?

Because no other site (let alone press outlets) does this. We explore and carefully study this one particular problem and make the truth as we see it — based on overlooked facts that we collect — available for others to learn from.