The BBC's news magazine has a grotesquely lopsided article curiously entitled "What happened to Second Life?", which largely recapitulates points from Wired's notorious anti-SL piece of 2007, which was fairly skewed in the first place. (It's astounding any credible media outlet would cite the experiences of American Apparel and Reuters' ill-fated SL bureau of two-three years ago as if they were relevant to Second Life as it is now.) As it happens, I was contacted by the BBC about this article yesterday, but wasn't able to respond in time. Not that that would have mattered, as the article's dubious thesis was already set in place by then. "We're running a story tomorrow about what happened to Second Life," the BBC's Jonathan Duffy told me brightly, "it seems to have slipped off the mainstream radar." Which is a strange thing to assert about an online world that's more than tripled its active user base since 2006, is used by numerous Fortune 500 companies and several branches of the US government, and is run by a company that was just ranked among the top 25 Internet start-ups. However, the BBC makes the classic mistake of confusing media attention with general attention. Then again, were the article called, "What happened to Second Life (when the BBC wasn't paying attention)?", it would be framed more accurately -- but would also point the failure where it actually belongs.