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

a person's reputation isn't like a trivial thing you can just kick around for the fuck of it.

Neither is a person's right not to experience sexual assault iirc, so maybe "Stop being so MEAN, you guuuuuys" is...an insufficient response.

as thirsty-to-piously-sociopathic as gawker comes off in these situations i'm glad to have this shit move past "long-established industry rumor" because i care more about powerful people not being able to abuse others than the possibility that an innocent comedy superstar will get embarrassed

Neither is a person's right not to experience sexual assault iirc, so maybe "Stop being so MEAN, you guuuuuys" is...an insufficient response.

some ppl might argue that the more severe the accusation, the more certain you should be about it before publishing. imagine if the crime was murder - gawker got an anonymous tip that louie ck is being looked into for a series of killings in NYC in the early 2000s. a person has a right not to experience being murdered, but why would that remove your obligation to make sure what you're running w/ is true first? or is sexual assault different (maybe bc you feel society doesn't treat it as importantly as it does murder so our normal standards of reporting gossip should be lower)?

the problem here is i think they didn't make the tip the story, they made a tip about a non-incriminating response to a question the story.

so the whole thing seems vaguer than if it had focused on the tip directly and on getting more tips directly.

i think the problem is that afaict gawker has not spoken to a single victim

as thirsty-to-piously-sociopathic as gawker comes off in these situations i'm glad to have this shit move past "long-established industry rumor" because i care more about powerful people not being able to abuse others than the possibility that an innocent comedy superstar will get embarrassed

― da croupier, Monday, May 18, 2015 1:19 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this post is soooooo much better than the "it's just journalism guys" defenses. like, there is clearly a tradeoff here and certain ethical obligations are being put aside with the understanding that it is for the larger good of preventing sexual assault. don't agree with this point of view but it's at least coherent. i wish a gawker rep would say this.

and yeah, i agree with mordy. if this story was about a victim coming forward to talk about their experiences the whole thing becomes different. i don't really know what it means for something to be an "open secret." once in college i learned it was an "open secret" that i did a lot of different kinds of drugs but that wasn't true.

normalizing journalists reporting criminal behavior w/out talking to the victim, the perpetrator, or law enforcement, etc seems like a really dangerous road to go down. gawker already blends the public figure / private citizen dichotomy, and now it's blending gossip with news.

tho i guess that's the tagline "today's gossip is tomorrow's news so why wait for tomorrow to report it?"

yeah i think it's part of the mission of the site to lower those standards but few ppl from over there seem willing to defend it explicitly. maybe because it sucks.

it's not in our job descriptions to respond to every criticism levied at the site, despite what people on this message board might think

You have an opportunity to respond to the ilx ones.

they have an opportunity to respond to all ones because it is the internet but should they bother? eh.

if only they had some sort of "page" on the web that they could "post" things to so that everyone could see them all at once idk just spitballing

It doesn't seem incriminating to reply to the email "People say you're doing things" with "What did these people say?"

in any event, the story is upfront about what it is: pieces of a larger story that can't be glued together because his (alleged) victims are afraid of speaking out against him, primarily because many of them work in the industry in which he is very powerful (with explicit power, but also implicit). the entire point of the story is that we have identified (alleged) victims but haven't been able to talk to them because they fear backlash that might endanger their reputations and/or careers. the hope is that by putting these morsels of the story out there, we might facilitate the process of finding people who will talk about their experiences with louis, or at least help us piece together more stories people have heard about other people's experiences with louis.

Someone itt actually wrote "Call me back if he actually rapes someone"

actually?

The entire point of the story is getting clicks on a day where a bunch of people are googling his name because of SNL, cmon man, cut the faux naive junk.

Aww, Gawker just cares about people you guys. This isn't at all about trying to get clicks from some barely substantiated story about a well known celebrity. So glad we got that cleared up.

"Why won't you answer us"

Answers

"Why are you lying to us"

How do you know that fear is their reason for not speaking to you?

anyway jordan i think you're right the story is honest about what it is but it would be a mistake to come away from criticisms thinking that ppl had accused you of being hypocritical or dishonest. the problem is the rush to publish damaging information about someone without fulfilling even minimal standards of authentication first.

How does the Times ever break a story without posting front-page accusations with requests for tips?

It's almost like gawker has major structural differences from the times

it's almost as if you're personally invested in that structure not being criticized

The entire point of the story is getting clicks on a day where a bunch of people are googling his name because of SNL, cmon man, cut the faux naive junk.

― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Monday, May 18, 2015 1:53 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

you literally don't understand the internet but please say more

Nice deflection

i mean i literally don't care why you think i published something

How does the Times ever break a story without posting front-page accusations with requests for tips?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, May 18, 2015 1:58 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

the point of gawker is to not act like newspapers, if people have problems with that fine but i'm not going to debate the ethos of the company. it's an old and boring debate that's been going on since i was in high school.

it's almost as if you're personally invested in that structure not being criticized

― Mordy, Monday, May 18, 2015 1:00 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol I'm not tho

"We recieved this tip months ago but at that point didn't really care that much about the allegations or victims because Louis CK wasn't hosting SNL that weekend."

you might be familiar with the concept of a "peg" but apparently not

the hope is that by putting these morsels of the story out there, we might facilitate the process of finding people who will talk about their experiences with louis, or at least help us piece together more stories people have heard about other people's experiences with louis.

― J0rdan S., Monday, May 18, 2015 1:50 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The entire point of the story is getting clicks on a day where a bunch of people are googling his name because of SNL, cmon man, cut the faux naive junk.

― a strawman stuffed with their collection of 12 cds (jjjusten), Monday, May 18, 2015 1:53 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think it's both. gawker readers and writers probably do think that their tactics allow them to "take down" the powerful. there's a left wing populism there that has precedents in american journalism... it's just ugly, at least to me, and i am not really convinced it serves the public interest.

i don't think this debate is boring and irrelevant. it seems interesting and relevant.

jordan, you're really stretching things calling yourself a "reporter"

it's an old and boring debate

"boring" b/c you don't like the implications, which is that the website that pays your bills is craven and ethically bankrupt

i mean if you all would like to have the debate then be my guest but my choice of employment makes clear which side i stand on and gawker as a company doesn't need me defending it on message boards

and yet here we are

but srsly, as with spotify on ilm i'd totally understand not wanting to respond to critiques of your employer on your funtime forum. so don't!

well i don't mind engaging to a point about things i've personally written, but whether gawker is an ethical company or something is not a discussion i feel the need to participate in

then don't

im not

i agree with da croupier.

you don't have a responsibility to respond, j0rdan. sorry if you felt like i and others were "grilling" you.

buuuut the question of gawker's ethics is important for people who care about american media, i feel, especially in the era of the decline of trad newspapers

i didnt know croups worked for spotify, nice gig :-)

Jordan mate. go and have a lie down. You're posting on a message board about how your company doesn't need you defending it on message boards. This never ends well.

haha omg if i was an accountant on spotify i would have zero web presence

accountant for spotify, i mean. the last thing i'd want is all you needlers asking me wtf is going on there

If you guys want to look into ethics in American media there are plenty of places to start that aren't websites based on gossip. Maybe everybody forgot NYTimes cheerleading us into the Iraq.

yeah no one on ilx ever criticizes the MSM for their compliance in administrative abuses of power

Alright I'm going to leave this thread to you guys, you seem to be in such a great mood.