Here, again, is the original quote from your post:
Turns out, the squid from hell has the eating habits of a nice, vegetarian Buddhist. (Or, more apropos, Bunnicula.) The squids’ entire diet is made of “marine snow” — floaty little bits of algae, poop, and bacteria.
I see its eating habits being described as that of a vegetarian, even if you didn’t actually call the squid vegetarian. But I also see that references to dead animals are removed, making it sound pretty vegetarian.
If audiences matter, should science reporting in the NY Times be interpreted differently than reporting in The Daily Mail, which has a very different audience and different objectives? If a piece is meant to be light and fluffy, is accuracy less important? Are there any issues with presenting both long-form, seriously journalistic pieces in the same forum (be it Boing Boing or mainstream media) as short, pithy edutainment pieces? Do we apply different standards based on the format of the individual piece and not the forum and/or author?
