Now I’ve seen some shameful journalism in my time, been party to some of it too, and I’ve seen reckless reporting to boot, but rarely have I seen something so disgraceful, irresponsible and cynical, all in the name of chasing clicks and presumably revenue.

I’m not going to name the paper, but they know who they are, and they know that the decision to post what is essentially ‘Terrorism for Dummies’ was a reckless abandonment of common sense in favour of tabloid metrics.

It is one thing to highlight a department’s failings under the banner of the public interest; that’s the heart of journalism. But providing a literal attack vector diagram to a bad actor (and I don’t mean Steven Seagal) crosses a line that is so bleeding obvious it shouldn’t even need to exist.

One that any self respecting journalist or news editor should be able to see from across the newsroom. The demarcation line between responsible and responsibility; between responsible reporting and the responsibility to report. A binary border between good and bad journalism.

For there is a massive structural difference between saying ‘this is dangerous’ and then publishing a graphic that identifies The Tool, The Target, The Mechanism, and the Secondary Economic Objective.

To a layman, it’s just a scary story with some posh flashy graphics. To someone who understands blast mechanics and the reality of sympathetic detonation, it’s a Target Folder. The only thing missing is a difficulty rating and an escape route.

Hopefully, this story will sit here unnoticed, unlike the other, read by a few of my regulars who will probably nod along in approval and understanding and who get the point with no damage done.

However. If Google and some news event has you stumbling on this obscure post on my even more obscure blog. Then you know who to blame.