Louie (Louis C.K.'s show on FX)

lag00n, that's the kind of thing that i think depends on who you're working with? i've had editors who were super intense about things like adequate sourcing, getting comments from the accused, etc. i once worked briefly on a possible sex offender case - someone was accusing a teacher at a local school of acting inappropriately with at least one of his underage high school students. unfortunately i couldn't get anyone to go on the record - the accuser stopped cooperating with the story, the victim wouldn't talk, etc. my editor wouldn't let me run it. i think that was the right decision. nb this was a private citizen and so maybe gawker would argue that the standard of evidence should be higher than for a celebrity, but i really don't know.

yeah i meant like universal rules, obvs individuals and publications may be more prescriptive, even then tho it can get pretty abstract fast

interestinganecdotes tho! wld read more

there are some universal rules -- this is a good place to start:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

obv it's not like being a doctor. you don't have to take an oath to start writing news.

xp fyi ILX house style is to put a space between two words

i heard this story about LCK last year from a pretty close friend, the victims were named, and were known personally to the person telling me, and the way it was told to me made it seem pretty credible. IDK if it's something he did more than once to various women. If the victims don't want to be named so that they can not get jobs and have their personal details dug up and waved around by MRA types then they absolutely should not have to be named. (and no I am not emailing anyone any details beyond what I just wrote).

there are some universal rules -- this is a good place to start:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

obv it's not like being a doctor. you don't have to take an oath to start writing news.

― Mordy, Monday, May 18, 2015 4:22 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

those are all principles tho! which are great but get murky fast irl situations, which is not to say theyre not useful

gawker aside whatever I feel like part of the umbrage here is due to it being about everyone's favorite bro's bro

Time to update the blog xxp

also gtfo with "if it was a murder accusation they would wait for full substantiation" gee I wonder if there's an evidential difference between murder and sexual assault? When was the last time a corpse falsely claimed to have been murdered?

it's been v fun to troll lck fans on social media tho so that's been a nice outlet for all my imp of the perverse

feel like hes more every frustrated awkward mans frustrated awkward man but the point stands

some paragon for why standup comedy is GREAT and TRUE and PULLS THE SCALES OFF OUR EYES

its almost TOO REAL

also gtfo with "if it was a murder accusation they would wait for full substantiation" gee I wonder if there's an evidential difference between murder and sexual assault? When was the last time a corpse falsely claimed to have been murdered?

i'm not sure this question really gets to why i made the comparison since there are no victims here who are claiming - falsely or truthfully - about an assault. it's hearsay. so both cases are talking about someone being accused of a crime through hearsay alone and i was suggesting that the more heinous the crime, the more evidence should be required. the other argument here afaict is the opposite - the more heinous the crime the less evidence you need. i think that's confused thinking.

that came out weird. was trying to say that this type of crime can always have doubt cast upon it in a way that murder cannot. You can debate who murdered the corpse but not that a murder occurred

ok but is that relevant to determining what level of confidence you should have before accusing someone of a crime?

you don't know if a crime occurred v. you know a crime for sure occurred but you don't know who did it -- in either case you're going to publish something damaging about a person w/out having the facts about /their/ particular involvement

full disclosure just wanna say i haven't watch louie in a few seasons and i got pretty bored of him. i did watch the snl monologue bc my mom made me. i thought it had some funny moments. i like the face he made while enjoying his imaginary mounts bar.

everyone is acting like he's getting publically crucified but i doubt it'll hurt his audience
tbh would not be surprised is there were some 5-eipsode arc about this on next season of louie, talking it out with some celebrity hero

xposts lonely doughy brotakus see him as the man using THE TRUTH to understand [the lonely doughy brotaku version of] HUMANITY (cf the onion a/v writer who used a sitcom as a "hay this funny ha-ha show reminds me of the time i almost hit my wife *writes many grafs*") so it's time to play TOWER DEFENSE AT THESE BASELESS ACCUSATIONS

like him & dov charney broing down over it in a very special episode shot by terry richardson

xp people def seem to take LCK's (and Maron's, Patton's, etc) alt-jokes as OTM life advice more often than they probably should

also iirc ppl started liking louie bc he talked about things like sexism/racism etc in a way that resonated w/ the contemporary liberal urban adult. which might mean it's even grosser if it's true (like that he could front all of these good things while acting like a POS in private), but it's not like he became popular bc he did some kind of hicks-esque speaking truth to power.

he did try to include a fat lady in an episode once about how unfuckable she was; that was very nice

(like that he could front all of these good things while acting like a POS in private)

i thought this was also a known part of his schtick

it's not like he became popular bc he did some kind of hicks-esque speaking truth to power.

― Mordy, Monday, May 18, 2015 4:35 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

its not true to power, its its funny because its true

(cf the onion a/v writer who used a sitcom as a "hay this funny ha-ha show reminds me of the time i almost hit my wife *writes many grafs*")

did an av club writer actually write a review like that?

am i wrong in feeling like a big part of his appeal is "he's just a schlubby looking guy trying to do the right thing" from a left-leaning pov? not just "it's funny bc it's true," but "i really relate to trying hard not to be a sexist + racist despite the programming of my culture."

that was the subtext of his racism bit on SNL i think. "i'm trying so hard not to be racist but those thoughts keep creeping in"

heard this story about LCK last year from a pretty close friend, the victims were named, and were known personally to the person telling me

don't think it's all that hard to figure out who the Female Comedy Duo in the story was.

that is accurate imo xp

yeah def, his audience is not "lonely doughy ppl," those dudes are busy listening to MRA-ass dipshit bill burr and other way further to the right comedians

I cringe every time I see J0rdan or any other writer comment in response to an anecdote asking for email contact. It kind of implies someone is going to ignore the email address and solication for information at the end of the article unless they're personally addressed, and just screams "we don't have a private messaging system in kinja so I'm going to keep this real classy"

also reminds me that they must not have a drinking fountain in the gawker office

dont read the comments

how else am I going to read the content on the site?

read the comments first, then see if the story is worthwhile, kinja-style

you arent doing a good job of measuring the temperature in the room

Perhaps not, but it feels like a room where you and Whiney are defending the kind of insubstantial clickbait that he in particular often (admirably) rails against. Except this time it's your mate so different rules apply.

i don't think this is insubstantial clickbait

according to my analytics the term clickbait currently has the widest spread between perceived and actual profundity on the whole damn internet, amazing

am i wrong in feeling like a big part of his appeal is "he's just a schlubby looking guy trying to do the right thing" from a left-leaning pov? not just "it's funny bc it's true," but "i really relate to trying hard not to be a sexist + racist despite the programming of my culture."

that was the subtext of his racism bit on SNL i think. "i'm trying so hard not to be racist but those thoughts keep creeping in"

yeah, i thought that his schtick might just be his schtick but it supposedly comes from a place of actual self-examination and deconstruction, so if the allegations were true that's kinda bad news generally for self-examination and deconstruction vis-a-vis not being an asshole.

/whispers/ the ability to be an asshole is within us all

that ppl on ilx might think there are intellectual shortcut paths to either not being an asshole or to mitigate being an asshole should maybe not surprise one I guess, but attributing overmuch based on one post is always a danger

he's made himself the public face of admitting you're an asshole, it's supposed to help you stop that kind of behavior is what my takeaway from his act was.

its prob does but its no cure

apparently

allegedly

obviously

like i'm aware that a performer's public face differs from his private one but a huge part of his act and appeal is that he connects the two; his stance i thought is that his comedy comes from a really personal space that he's fearlessly revealing to the public for the edification of us all

like r. crumb but i guess that's qed re: asshole