I hadn’t read that article closely enough. It’s actually a classic example of the sort of journalistic narrow-mindedness I learned to hate at feet of the master, my dad.

I think most people have never heard of the false killer whale before. And yet the article says “False killer whales do not closely resemble killer whales. They grow to 20 feet, weigh up to two tons and have a tapering, rounded snout that overhangs their toothed jaw.”

This leaves the reader with one important question: Why do they call them false killer whales?”

Were they wrongly accused in the past? Did they attempt identity theft?

This is an important point for young journalists: No reader has ever been offended by learning something interesting. Would it have killed them to offer two sentences as to why they’re called false killer whales?

My dad always tells me that “every sentence you write should be either interesting or important.” This is usually an unatainable ideal and I’d probably throw in “entertaining” as a third category. But it’s a good rule of thumb.

Anyway, then there’s another gaffe caught an intrepid reader. I’ll post his email:

O.K., so I was reading that “wholphin” story you posted and noted yet another example of that great MSM fact-checking we’re always hearing about. Toward the end of the article, it says:
“Park researchers suspect the wholphin’s father is a 15-foot long Atlantic bottlenose dolphin named Mikioi.”
Four sentences later, it says:
“Atlantic bottlenose dolphins reach a maximum size of 12 feet and can weigh up to 700 pounds.”
Call me crazy, but I think the average blogger would have caught that one and made the necessary fact check and correction.