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

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.

bye Adam!

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.

― Position Position, Monday, May 18, 2015 1:18 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol how did this get turned around so jordan is the one accused of being aggy

u guys harassed him til he answered, then harassed him about his answer, then harassed him for bothering to answer at all

i guess treesh is the only one who managed the hat trick but

it's called 'a treship'

i don't know one way or the other obv but louis' standup material about women is usually the weakest part of his set. there's a confounding big-upping of stereotypes that you don't see him indulge in with other subjects.

u guys harassed him til he answered, then harassed him about his answer, then harassed him for bothering to answer at all

We're supposed to pity a Gawker writer for being harassed? That's a good one.

I think we shld turn our ire against some site no one here writes for, then we won't have to fret about feelings

fighting with gawker writers abt what theyve written is an ilx genre with so much potential... and yet

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/29ge32/big-time-in-hollywood--fl-the-pitch

We're supposed to pity a Gawker writer for being harassed? That's a good one.

― Position Position, Monday, May 18, 2015 2:26 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

who said anything about pity? you arent doing a good job of measuring the temperature in the room

Question question? Sarcasm sarcasm.

hardon 4 gawker is such a pathetic ilx stance I can't even

is shrill outrage at it any less pathetic?

lol "shrill"

don't u tone police me :p

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/images/0802/Shrill-HRC.gif

i'm getting 77 autogoon keepin' it negative dickhole zing posse vibes from the way the argument is breaking down here

classic

shrieking round the kitchen rite now temperature in the room is thru the roof

classic

― lag∞n, Monday, May 18, 2015 9:04 PM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

dud

>_<

i obv have no idea who the 77 autogoon crew is bc i was sure it was deej, some dude, whiney and jordan

feel like journalistic ethics is something thats often seen as having rules when really it barely has principles

Question question? Sarcasm sarcasm.

― Mr. Murphy in the wine bar. (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, May 18, 2015 2:50 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that wasn't sarcasm! i said he isn't doing a good job

thought the doubling made my position position clear clear

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