This was definitely well-written, and very enjoyable to read. But I don't think it was true journalism. The story was manipulated to show first one side, then the other, then to leave the reader hanging in the balance. I can appreciate the writing skill to do that, but I'm still left wondering whether some information was sacrificed to achieve it.
HN commenters have come up with some probable scenarios (my favorite is that he knew there were drugs but really thought Denise was real [1]), and I would think a more journalistic piece would explore those. Obviously, the writer can't put in all the details from months of research, but can give scenarios that seem plausible given those details.
Finally, I'm surprised there was no research into who the con men were. Maybe it's dangerous to investigate that, but it still seems like a totally one-sided story if he was conned, but nobody is trying to figure out who did it. So in the end, I think the entertainment value was higher than the news value or even the investigative reporting value.
>> The story was manipulated to show first one side, then the other, then to leave the reader hanging in the balance.
This is true, but this is always true. The idea of pure journalism, imo, of a story presented without artifice or bias, is an illusion. A dry style with a linear presentation of facts shorn of judgement and opinion is itself an artifice. It just happens to be an artifice that has, by cultural convention, branded itself as "true" and "objective."
I don't think recasting this story in such a style would have provided much new information or left me with a clearer picture of what had actually happened. But I think quite a bit would be lost.
HN commenters have come up with some probable scenarios (my favorite is that he knew there were drugs but really thought Denise was real [1]), and I would think a more journalistic piece would explore those. Obviously, the writer can't put in all the details from months of research, but can give scenarios that seem plausible given those details.
Finally, I'm surprised there was no research into who the con men were. Maybe it's dangerous to investigate that, but it still seems like a totally one-sided story if he was conned, but nobody is trying to figure out who did it. So in the end, I think the entertainment value was higher than the news value or even the investigative reporting value.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5344496