On June 20, Richard McManus posted an "article" on ReadWriteWeb claiming that Digg had surpassed Facebook in daily unique users and had grown 1400% in one year. Anyone with a brain could already tell that statement was false, but Richie had *facts* and *graphs* to back his statements up. Like a typical know-nothing "tech journalist," Richie posted a couple graphs screen-capped from Compete, shared some simple math calculations, and then absolved himself of all journalistic responsibility by ending his "article" in a question.

Asking your readers a question does not mean you don't have to know what you are talking about

The comments that followed Richie's "article" proceeded to provide a very simple explanation as to why Compete was attributing so much traffic to Digg, and illustrated why you can't rely on Compete stats at all. Richie had a heck of a lot of trouble understanding all this, but after a while, he got the message. He even admitted that the stats were bunk. But if ReadWriteWeb were a forrealz reputable media source, Richie would have edited his post and admitted that he had no idea what he was talking about, instead of leaving his incorrect assumptions up for everyone who doesn't know anything about tech to read as fact.

Finding graphs online does not equal serious research

If you don't know why I keep putting the word article in quotation marks, you are too dumb for your own good. Everytime a self-proclaimed "valley expert" tries to make a newsworthy story about *facts* and *graphs*, they get the story dead wrong. Sites like ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, and TechCrunch are just heaping pitchers of bunk, and moronic business and marketing types drink that bunk every day. When your boss comes to you, underpaid developer, saying that everyone needs to shift their focus from Facebook to Digg because the Internet said so, thank Richie for making you have to explain the *facts*.

If Uncov is the only chance we have of getting some responsibility in "valley media," I'm here for the long haul.