I find it very difficult to see what CNN has to gain from holding something over the head of a random internet nazi troll. They're gonna blackmail him to stop making stupid memes? Just, to what end?
This is some really absurd logic. They clarified that they agreed to not publish his name now based off his pleas but reserve the right to do so if it becomes relevant in any way. Which it might, because he's an adult who behaved as a hateful little shit-stain in such a way that it pleased the President.
It's. It's just not a threat. It's bad writing at the absolute worst. Why make discrediting CNN any easier? The right-wing is doing an admirable job, and CNN is no slouch at embarrassing themselves either, but not because of this, and less so recently than in the (fairly recent) past.
What is the logic that would drive CNN to do this? They extort random trolls now? They get him to wash all their news vans for free forever?
What they have to gain is a [deterrent for future internet trolls to involve them in such memes. By making it clear that they have the means and the willingness to track down someone who makes such a post, and hold the possibility of an info leak over their heads, it potentially scares others away from doing the same.
What CNN's article says, quite explicitly, is that they could have released his information but they didn't because he apologized. If I'm an internet troll I read that as an unspoken warning that next time they might not be so generous. If the author of that article truly didn't intend it to be taken that way then it was incompetently written, and I don't know why it hasn't been updated by now.
That's not CNN's job, is the job of the police. Which is why playing moral police of the internet is a breach of standards for a journalist.
On more backlash, German Lopez is a reporter at Vox:
They are a news organization. Doxing is finding out facts through investigation. News organizations are supposed to do that. That's literally their job. And people are criticizing them because they didn't release that information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcRS5eUpwk
Ted Cruz is an opportunistic weasel. Every news organization that ever printed the name of someone who did something shitty could be sued under the guise of "disseminating information tending to subject a person to hatred".
Had this article been "Reddit user whatshisname, real name John Q Nazi, has since apologized for his behavior." They would have simply been reporting the facts of the case and it would have absolutely ruined this guys life.
Ted Cruz is an opportunistic weasel. Every news organization that ever printed the name of someone who did something shitty could be sued under the guise of "disseminating information tending to subject a person to hatred".
Had this article been "Reddit user whatshisname, real name John Q Nazi, has since apologized for his behavior." They would have simply been reporting the facts of the case and it would have absolutely ruined this guys life.
Good to know Ted Cruz supports imprisoning people who out LGBT folks though. Oh wait.
This is playing out like Bizarro James Comey "I hope theres tapes"!
Because I am positive this hard core, alt-right, Trump supporting Republican who people like Cruz are trying to paint as "the liberal media bullied and manipulated" is FREAKING OUT everytime someone like Cruz weighs in.
Because I'm sure there are tapes, and I'm sure they are "Oh thank god for you CNN, thank you so much for keeping my name out of this."
And if they keep pushing this narrative CNN is going to have to ask this guy to either appear on camera saying this, or release his phone call and his name.
I can't wrap my head around everyone saying "theyre threatening to Dox someone for not being a liberal!" forcing an issue where CNN will have to do that.
Which is the Republican media in a nutshell really - find a way to twist it so that no matter what you do, you're wrong. The second this guy's name IS out, CNN will be vilified for releasing it "when they said they wouldn't!"
EDIT: I assume conversation about the situation, Ethics and manipulation of the press is still on topic - it's the personal jabs at CNN that aren't allowed. If I'm wrong I apologize and will delete.
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
The story is that a random racist posted a meme the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES turned into an Official White House statement by retweeting it.
The story then took an interesting turn when, instead of embracing what would be a big amount of internet fame when the President endorses your work, he asked to remain anonymous and renounced everything he had done and vowed to be a better person.
Including that he asked to remain anonymous, and then explaining why they honored that request, is a big part of the story.
Also explaining that if the reasons they decided to leave him anonymous change, they feel his name would be newsworthy, is important.
This logic appears to make CNN an activist organization rather than a news organization. It feels a lot more Gawker than CNN.
Why?
What is in any way activist about it?
The ethical dilemma CNN faced when they learned his identity was - what good comes from telling the world who this horrible guy is? Does it make it a better story? Does it add anything to the context of his comments? Does it help convey the facts better?
And the answer to all the above is no.
Journalism isn't black and white. You wield immense power when you report on anything. When you tell the world something, entire lives, families and communities change. You can bring down governments.
So when you are faced with something like this, you have to decide. In my journalism ethics class we did an exercise debating about suicide. Do you report on a suicide? If it's a lone adult? What if it's the son of someone famous? What if it caused an even bigger accident somehow? You have to balance informing people what's going on in the world with just being a decent human being and not putting people like family members, who did nothing wrong, through pain and suffering for no reason.
How does having a name change anything about this story?
CNN could have named him no problem or not named him. Instead they decided that he did something bad (I'm guessing this is based on other things he posted and not the McMahon post) and decided not to name him based on this badness. Nowhere in the story do we know what the badness is (you can find it elsewhere). They are making a judgement call as to the moral character of this person rather than reporting on his actions and letting the reader decide. They are choosing not to name him based on that perception of his moral character. That is a level of activism that rubs me the wrong way coming from a news org. I understand that there are people who believe that news organizations should be activist or more activist than current norms. I am not one of those people, but I really don't think we should derail the thread with that discussion.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
But the activism they showed was to protect his identity something they reserved the right to report on should the story change? Like they didn't publish his name and people are saying it would have been ok if they had?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I wonder how upset people would be if they simply had reported that person X from Y area posted Z that Trump retweeted?
Just straight up reveal who the source for Trumps tweet was, nothing more.
But the activism they showed was to protect his identity something they reserved the right to report on should the story change? Like they didn't publish his name and people are saying it would have been ok if they had?
By not publishing his name but saying they still can, it comes off as a threat. Keep making racist angry memes and we will expose you, but behave the way we want and we will keep you safe.
It's pretty clearly not intended to be that in the end but a lot of people are gonna read it that way.
Not publishing his name but saying they still can comes off as them saying they didn't make any agreement with him and not to interpret the statement as meaning there is any sort of deal between them.
But the activism they showed was to protect his identity something they reserved the right to report on should the story change? Like they didn't publish his name and people are saying it would have been ok if they had?
By not publishing his name but saying they still can, it comes off as a threat. Keep making racist angry memes and we will expose you, but behave the way we want and we will keep you safe.
It's pretty clearly not intended to be that in the end but a lot of people are gonna read it that way.
The people who read it that way we're always inclined to, for a few reasons.
But the activism they showed was to protect his identity something they reserved the right to report on should the story change? Like they didn't publish his name and people are saying it would have been ok if they had?
By not publishing his name but saying they still can, it comes off as a threat. Keep making racist angry memes and we will expose you, but behave the way we want and we will keep you safe.
It's pretty clearly not intended to be that in the end but a lot of people are gonna read it that way.
It seems to me more of a statement of fact "you aren't news worthy yet and out of concern for exposing you as a racist shit we won't, but if you become more newsworthy we will."
The threat here is entirely of this guys own making is my issue with any concern over it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
But the activism they showed was to protect his identity something they reserved the right to report on should the story change? Like they didn't publish his name and people are saying it would have been ok if they had?
Frankly, the world would be a better place if every Confederate flag waving, hate crime advocating, lynch mob wannabe shit stain on reddit and 4chan knew and feared that their hate speech was actually going to be attached to them, and that yes their current and future employers/love interests/family members/acquaintances COULD find that shit at the top of the list with a simple Google search of their actual name.
+17
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
What's troubling is that the GOP has cultivated (and Trump has saddled up and ridden hard on) an anti-press sentiment among a large portion of the population such that the idea of a news organization publically blackmailing an internet poster for making a mean gif about them is not immediately dismissed as ludicrous.
I spent awhile debating what thread to put this in since it spans several issues, but this one seemed most relevant.
I was just in Montana for a vacation -- extremely beautiful state, and we met many wonderful people, too. But. I also overheard a conversation in a Target that instantaneously washed away all the "things will prooobably be ok" feelings I've been trying to hold on to since the election.
It initially caught my attention because they were talking about the Gianforte incident with the Guardian reporter, which I figured I'd hear something about during the trip. They were both of the opinion it was obviously made-up bullshit because they deemed the reporter was too calm afterwards. "If it was me, I would be beating the shit out of the other guy afterwards. That's how you know he was making it up. Because all he said was, 'you broke my glasses'!"
The second guy's reply (verbatim) was: "A couple Montana guys shoulda taken him out back and left him in a dumpster. He's not even American! He's British*!"
* He's not British. He's an American. But he writes for the Guardian. Also, fuck you if you think beating on someone is OK if they're not American.
That was followed by: "Everyone's just so sick of democrats, you know? Like this guy who shot up the baseball team. You know how you can tell that guy was a democrat? Cause he goes to a field with a loaded AR and he can only hit one guy."
Aaaaaaand this is exactly why the tweet of Trump beating on CNN isn't some harmless joke.
If you were picturing these guys as coal-mining, boomer-aged cowboys, don't. They were both 20 - 30 somethings, and one of them was an on-the-clock employee of the Target.
In fact, choosing whether or not to publish someone's name for ethical or moral reasons using only their own morality and ethics as a compass is some of the most basic forms of journalism
I think in this age people have forgotten that print and broadcast media / journalism are actual programs of study at universities that require you study ethics and legal practices. Just because someone can make news or post on Reddit doesn't make them a journalist.
This entire situation is being projected upon by people who aren't journalists that like to think they are. Morality doesn't change based on the number of views, retweets or likes. Despite what shit posters, quasi-news organizations and our president would like to believe.
Edit: Sorry SIG. Hopefully the point I was trying to make was general enough. I don't think of it in terms of CNN, or this specific incident. There's way too much credibility given to people just for fucking trending on Twitter instead of the truth of their content.
The media CANNOT censor themselves out of fear of offending the right wing or coddling them and their followers, because despite the right crowing about snowflakes needing safe spaces, they treat EVERYTHING as an attack on Trump and them. Even beyond pithy comments like "reality has a liberal basis," they also got up in arms over the weekend about NPR tweeting the Declaration of Independence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/05/declaration-independence-tweets-confuse-donald-trump-supporters/
NPR has recited the Declaration of Independence every 4th of July for the last 29 years. This year, they made the mistake of doing it both on the station and online, so naturally, a ton of people went ballistic, because anybody talking about declaring independence from tyrants MUST be talking about Trump.
The media CANNOT censor themselves out of fear of offending the right wing or coddling them and their followers, because despite the right crowing about snowflakes needing safe spaces, they treat EVERYTHING as an attack on Trump and them. Even beyond pithy comments like "reality has a liberal basis," they also got up in arms over the weekend about NPR tweeting the Declaration of Independence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/05/declaration-independence-tweets-confuse-donald-trump-supporters/
NPR has recited the Declaration of Independence every 4th of July for the last 29 years. This year, they made the mistake of doing it both on the station and online, so naturally, a ton of people went ballistic, because anybody talking about declaring independence from tyrants MUST be talking about Trump.
That's the funny part about a lot of their defensiveness. They *know* they're wrong, and care enough to take offense. Like with Trump Jr spreading the lie that HanAssholeSolo is a 15-year-old, because the person making these shitty memes has to be a dumb kid, right? It would be embarrassing if that was a grown-ass adult. So it must not be.
A group that wasn't insecure about their values or what they're doing would've replied to the NPR tweets with "America, fuck yeah," or would be proudly celebrating HanAssholeSolo as a hero of the cause.
As someone who actually did study journalism ethics, there is no way in hell I run that story unless I have some reason to believe he gave the meme to the President intentionally.
But I've had this argument with my colleagues for years and I always lose. If it'll derive clicks, it'll run.
Frankly, the world would be a better place if every Confederate flag waving, hate crime advocating, lynch mob wannabe shit stain on reddit and 4chan knew and feared that their hate speech was actually going to be attached to them, and that yes their current and future employers/love interests/family members/acquaintances COULD find that shit at the top of the list with a simple Google search of their actual name.
Sure. But do you want that precedent in the hands of Dictator For Life Trump who has outlawed dissent?
I'm stretching in the extreme to be sure, but there is a reason anonymous free speech is considered a crucial subset of total free speech historically.
I really don't see how you can read that statement as anything other than a threat. They literally say "unless the situation changes."
I don't think this can be painted as anyone who thinks that way is just bound and determined to hate whatever cnn did. It's a threat, they're threatening to out him. The internet creates a very strange problem for news organizations where people can do things anonymously through that has a huge impact. Do they reveal who this guy is? He's a racist fuck, is it ethical to strip his privacy on a massive scale? Who's making the judgement that it's ok to remove that veneer of privacy?
I dunno, I just don't think it's such a slam dunk easy discussion.
I doubt it was meant as a threat. It was just poorly explained.
You aren't publishing his name because he never took an action that a reasonable person would expect would put themselves up as a public figure on the issue. That's basic journalism ethics. And no, putting a meme on Reddit isn't putting yourself out as a public figure at this level.
What they were saying is that this determination isn't permanent. If he decides to go on tour with Trump and start making public speeches, then he is thrusting himself into the public light and his previous actions are fair game.
As someone who actually did study journalism ethics, there is no way in hell I run that story unless I have some reason to believe he gave the meme to the President intentionally.
But I've had this argument with my colleagues for years and I always lose. If it'll derive clicks, it'll run.
Well, I respect that you would make that decision. I would argue the article was poorly written and whoever they ran it past failed in their position as editor. There are lots of times I think content is objectionable and the error was in publishing at all. It seems recently this has become persistently true with some organizations that wish they were taken seriously, and actually have decent enough writers that if the object of the story were different I'm sure they'd do quite well. It seems the need for clicks is rubbing off on big-media, and journalism ethics are gradually being corralled into very specific sections of newspapers/online magazines. "Letters to the Editor" and opinion pieces now run the show.
I don't think it's an intentional thing by people who report news or write serious articles, it's definitely intentional by the conglomerates that see news as a money making enterprise, and I don't know that anyone has found an answer to that yet.
+3
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Oh go fuck yourself Cruz. Unless you'd like to litigate the ethics of news organizations breathlessly reporting John Podesta's stolen emails by an adverse foreign power, shut your weaselly little mouth about ethics.
I doubt it was meant as a threat. It was just poorly explained.
You aren't publishing his name because he never took an action that a reasonable person would expect would put themselves up as a public figure on the issue. That's basic journalism ethics. And no, putting a meme on Reddit isn't putting yourself out as a public figure at this level.
What they were saying is that this determination isn't permanent. If he decides to go on tour with Trump and start making public speeches, then he is thrusting himself into the public light and his previous actions are fair game.
This entire explanation would have made this entire thing a moot point in my mind. That makes sense to me.
I could go on for days about how modern journalism has abdicated ethics. Going with an anonymous source used to be a once-a-career decision taken after deep consultation with your editors. Now it's a Tuesday.
And this is vitally important to the subject of this thread because it opened the door to erode the public trust to the degree that when the government attacks the media, you can't be sure who the public will side with.
Posts
That's not CNN's job, is the job of the police. Which is why playing moral police of the internet is a breach of standards for a journalist.
On more backlash, German Lopez is a reporter at Vox:
They are a news organization. Doxing is finding out facts through investigation. News organizations are supposed to do that. That's literally their job. And people are criticizing them because they didn't release that information.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Had this article been "Reddit user whatshisname, real name John Q Nazi, has since apologized for his behavior." They would have simply been reporting the facts of the case and it would have absolutely ruined this guys life.
Good to know Ted Cruz supports imprisoning people who out LGBT folks though. Oh wait.
Because I am positive this hard core, alt-right, Trump supporting Republican who people like Cruz are trying to paint as "the liberal media bullied and manipulated" is FREAKING OUT everytime someone like Cruz weighs in.
Because I'm sure there are tapes, and I'm sure they are "Oh thank god for you CNN, thank you so much for keeping my name out of this."
And if they keep pushing this narrative CNN is going to have to ask this guy to either appear on camera saying this, or release his phone call and his name.
I can't wrap my head around everyone saying "theyre threatening to Dox someone for not being a liberal!" forcing an issue where CNN will have to do that.
Which is the Republican media in a nutshell really - find a way to twist it so that no matter what you do, you're wrong. The second this guy's name IS out, CNN will be vilified for releasing it "when they said they wouldn't!"
EDIT: I assume conversation about the situation, Ethics and manipulation of the press is still on topic - it's the personal jabs at CNN that aren't allowed. If I'm wrong I apologize and will delete.
CNN could have named him no problem or not named him. Instead they decided that he did something bad (I'm guessing this is based on other things he posted and not the McMahon post) and decided not to name him based on this badness. Nowhere in the story do we know what the badness is (you can find it elsewhere). They are making a judgement call as to the moral character of this person rather than reporting on his actions and letting the reader decide. They are choosing not to name him based on that perception of his moral character. That is a level of activism that rubs me the wrong way coming from a news org. I understand that there are people who believe that news organizations should be activist or more activist than current norms. I am not one of those people, but I really don't think we should derail the thread with that discussion.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
pleasepaypreacher.net
Just straight up reveal who the source for Trumps tweet was, nothing more.
By not publishing his name but saying they still can, it comes off as a threat. Keep making racist angry memes and we will expose you, but behave the way we want and we will keep you safe.
It's pretty clearly not intended to be that in the end but a lot of people are gonna read it that way.
The people who read it that way we're always inclined to, for a few reasons.
It seems to me more of a statement of fact "you aren't news worthy yet and out of concern for exposing you as a racist shit we won't, but if you become more newsworthy we will."
The threat here is entirely of this guys own making is my issue with any concern over it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes.
I was just in Montana for a vacation -- extremely beautiful state, and we met many wonderful people, too. But. I also overheard a conversation in a Target that instantaneously washed away all the "things will prooobably be ok" feelings I've been trying to hold on to since the election.
It initially caught my attention because they were talking about the Gianforte incident with the Guardian reporter, which I figured I'd hear something about during the trip. They were both of the opinion it was obviously made-up bullshit because they deemed the reporter was too calm afterwards. "If it was me, I would be beating the shit out of the other guy afterwards. That's how you know he was making it up. Because all he said was, 'you broke my glasses'!"
The second guy's reply (verbatim) was: "A couple Montana guys shoulda taken him out back and left him in a dumpster. He's not even American! He's British*!"
* He's not British. He's an American. But he writes for the Guardian. Also, fuck you if you think beating on someone is OK if they're not American.
That was followed by: "Everyone's just so sick of democrats, you know? Like this guy who shot up the baseball team. You know how you can tell that guy was a democrat? Cause he goes to a field with a loaded AR and he can only hit one guy."
Aaaaaaand this is exactly why the tweet of Trump beating on CNN isn't some harmless joke.
If you were picturing these guys as coal-mining, boomer-aged cowboys, don't. They were both 20 - 30 somethings, and one of them was an on-the-clock employee of the Target.
I think in this age people have forgotten that print and broadcast media / journalism are actual programs of study at universities that require you study ethics and legal practices. Just because someone can make news or post on Reddit doesn't make them a journalist.
This entire situation is being projected upon by people who aren't journalists that like to think they are. Morality doesn't change based on the number of views, retweets or likes. Despite what shit posters, quasi-news organizations and our president would like to believe.
Edit: Sorry SIG. Hopefully the point I was trying to make was general enough. I don't think of it in terms of CNN, or this specific incident. There's way too much credibility given to people just for fucking trending on Twitter instead of the truth of their content.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/05/declaration-independence-tweets-confuse-donald-trump-supporters/
NPR has recited the Declaration of Independence every 4th of July for the last 29 years. This year, they made the mistake of doing it both on the station and online, so naturally, a ton of people went ballistic, because anybody talking about declaring independence from tyrants MUST be talking about Trump.
That's the funny part about a lot of their defensiveness. They *know* they're wrong, and care enough to take offense. Like with Trump Jr spreading the lie that HanAssholeSolo is a 15-year-old, because the person making these shitty memes has to be a dumb kid, right? It would be embarrassing if that was a grown-ass adult. So it must not be.
A group that wasn't insecure about their values or what they're doing would've replied to the NPR tweets with "America, fuck yeah," or would be proudly celebrating HanAssholeSolo as a hero of the cause.
But I've had this argument with my colleagues for years and I always lose. If it'll derive clicks, it'll run.
Sure. But do you want that precedent in the hands of Dictator For Life Trump who has outlawed dissent?
I'm stretching in the extreme to be sure, but there is a reason anonymous free speech is considered a crucial subset of total free speech historically.
I don't think this can be painted as anyone who thinks that way is just bound and determined to hate whatever cnn did. It's a threat, they're threatening to out him. The internet creates a very strange problem for news organizations where people can do things anonymously through that has a huge impact. Do they reveal who this guy is? He's a racist fuck, is it ethical to strip his privacy on a massive scale? Who's making the judgement that it's ok to remove that veneer of privacy?
I dunno, I just don't think it's such a slam dunk easy discussion.
You aren't publishing his name because he never took an action that a reasonable person would expect would put themselves up as a public figure on the issue. That's basic journalism ethics. And no, putting a meme on Reddit isn't putting yourself out as a public figure at this level.
What they were saying is that this determination isn't permanent. If he decides to go on tour with Trump and start making public speeches, then he is thrusting himself into the public light and his previous actions are fair game.
Well, I respect that you would make that decision. I would argue the article was poorly written and whoever they ran it past failed in their position as editor. There are lots of times I think content is objectionable and the error was in publishing at all. It seems recently this has become persistently true with some organizations that wish they were taken seriously, and actually have decent enough writers that if the object of the story were different I'm sure they'd do quite well. It seems the need for clicks is rubbing off on big-media, and journalism ethics are gradually being corralled into very specific sections of newspapers/online magazines. "Letters to the Editor" and opinion pieces now run the show.
I don't think it's an intentional thing by people who report news or write serious articles, it's definitely intentional by the conglomerates that see news as a money making enterprise, and I don't know that anyone has found an answer to that yet.
Oh go fuck yourself Cruz. Unless you'd like to litigate the ethics of news organizations breathlessly reporting John Podesta's stolen emails by an adverse foreign power, shut your weaselly little mouth about ethics.
NNID: Hakkekage
This entire explanation would have made this entire thing a moot point in my mind. That makes sense to me.
And this is vitally important to the subject of this thread because it opened the door to erode the public trust to the degree that when the government attacks the media, you can't be sure who the public will side with.
Apparently, we have failed.
This thread is taking a break.
Geth, close the thread.