hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

i agree that the hulkster suit is a clash of cultures. rich lunkhead bro culture vs rich white dudes from academia culture.

and of course when you make an assumption that standards do not need challenging that is by default pro status quo

it is a not interested in learning position

This all looks v strange from the uk where the post-leveson outcome that creeps can go on rooting thru sienna millers trash is part of an overall victory for precisely this damaging status quo

the comparison to standards of medical science is extremely absurd

but gawker takes a host of very valuable standards - don't out people w/out their permission, don't post naked pictures of them without permission, don't run stories w/out having them confirmed by a reliable source (or two!), don't violate the privacy of civilians without a strong public interest, etc

― Mordy, Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:28 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

always be suspicious of arguments that are interested in rules over principals

like I'm sure that after this period of bold media self-examination the only difference will be more gawking xxp

but gawker takes a host of very valuable standards - don't out people w/out their permission, don't post naked pictures of them without permission, don't run stories w/out having them confirmed by a reliable source (or two!), don't violate the privacy of civilians without a strong public interest, etc

― Mordy, Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:28 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

always be suspicious of arguments that are interested in rules over principals

― lag∞n, Sunday, July 12, 2015 6:38 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

assuming you meant "principle", isn't mordy saying they're v valuable as a result of underlying principles & not arbitrarily just cause they're the rules?

looks like a list of rules to me

oh damn you're right

youll have to point me to where he articulates the "principles" that tie them together

https://estreetfilmsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/citizen-kane-declaration-of-principles.jpg

xp he hasn't, which must mean there aren't any! yay for good faith argument boo to mordy or donny don't as I now call him

it'd be funny if this thread succeeded in getting someone to either like gawker who hadn't or get someone who works for gawker (or wants to) to not

(or wants to) to not

i'm sure there are plenty of these already

because of this thread though?

"These will be kept."

xp he hasn't, which must mean there aren't any! yay for good faith argument boo to mordy or donny don't as I now call him

― the story of ilm: an ottyssey (wins), Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:51 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the fact that this post contains a complaint abt good faith argumentation is frankly outragous

:-)

well I can't speak for mordy but I give him the BOD that there is a reason he calls them "very valuable", even if the underlying principle is just "don't be a shit"

like I say tho I have a difft angle on this cause over here it is not at all impossible to imagine a media that protects those in power AND publishes scuzzy telephoto lens violations of people you've heard of

idk i feel like its generally pretty telling whether ppl choose to talk abt rules or principles, and dont be a shit is way too broad/subjective to be meaningful, its like half a step from make good stuff

the thing is Mordy's right. those are good standards unless there's a greater-good argument - if one had needed a Nixon sex tape to break Watergate open, say. most good-practices journalism stuff is pretty glaringly obvious. whether it's illegal or not, separate question, I suspect it's protected speech, but "I'm allowed to do this" is a poor defense of shitty behavior

― Joan Crawford Loves Chachi, Sunday, 12 July 2015 17:00 (56 minutes ago) Permalink

Lol wat

like I say tho I have a difft angle on this cause over here it is not at all impossible to imagine a media that protects those in power AND publishes scuzzy telephoto lens violations of people you've heard of

― the story of ilm: an ottyssey (wins), Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:01 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So like tmz? http://defamer.gawker.com/tmz-blackmailed-justin-bieber-with-racist-video-for-yea-1586403133

professionals want to be seen as respectable authorities and the way they do that is by adopting standards in their profession that track w/ what the general culture sees as appropriate behavior. there might be doctors that are frustrated w/ various ways that their industry impedes their abilities to, idk, use untested medication on patients, give assisted suicide, disclose hipaa information, etc, and in places where we may agree w/ a particular difference w/ the standards we may agree or disagree w/ a particular dr's decision to fight against them. but gawker takes a host of very valuable standards - don't out people w/out their permission, don't post naked pictures of them without permission, don't run stories w/out having them confirmed by a reliable source (or two!), don't violate the privacy of civilians without a strong public interest, etc - and tosses them out and you want us to talk about whether in a general sense challenging media standards is a good thing. like, no, it isn't. maybe some standards are worth challenging but it's not a totally failed institution. it's a good thing that the NYT doesn't touch most of the stories gawker does. the media would be infinitely poorer if outlets adopted gawker's standards.

there are a lot of assumptions being made here that don't track with my experience or understanding at all. i dont think its useful to think of journalists as "professionals," for one thing--the comparison with doctors is telling: journalists do not swear oaths; they are not required to attend journalism school; most importantly they are not legally required to receive state credentials to perform their jobs--but i also would dispute that most journalists want to be "respectable authorities" or are looking to "adopt standards." (the saw is: any journalist with more than one person at her funeral failed at her job.)

and, well, the media would be infinitely poorer if all outlets adopted the new york times' standards. the healthiest press is a diverse one.

the thing is Mordy's right. those are good standards unless there's a greater-good argument - if one had needed a Nixon sex tape to break Watergate open, say. most good-practices journalism stuff is pretty glaringly obvious. whether it's illegal or not, separate question, I suspect it's protected speech, but "I'm allowed to do this" is a poor defense of shitty behavior

― Joan Crawford Loves Chachi, Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:00 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it is pretty glaringly obvious. the law has an expansive understanding of what "greater good" means in the context of speech. as nearly every first-amendment lawyer you'll talk to will tell you, gawker will win this lawsuit on appeal (just as it has nearly every appeal it has made already). if hogan had not successfully drawn the judge he has, it would never have gotten this far.

i guess i can see that the fact that reporters undertake as their jobs a kind of professionalized rudeness makes people very uncomfortable. but burying that work under a set of rules about what's allowed so that people feel more comfortable with it is in my opinion a very bad idea. my pet theory is that gamergate obsessively focuses on journalism as an institution because the engineer/gaming community is so rules-focused that the idea of an actual job where people are able to skirt rules of socialization and not only "get away with it" but be rewarded for it seems absurd and sinister

man that just sounds so weird coming from you in re: the matter in question

(as I said in my post, I suspect this is protected speech, I'm less interested in it from a legal perspective than a why-would-you-do-that one)

even if it would be inadvisable to formalize journalistic standards due to the invasive nature of the profession and the need for journalists to not feel like their hands are tied all the time, i think it still makes sense to question to actions of media organizations and look at, in individual cases, whether the public interest was served or not. you're right that journalism is more anarchic than the medical profession, but the reason it functions that way is that there would be a public cost to holding journalists to overly strict standards. so in cases where the public good isn't served -- a standard you can't define legally as it's totally subjective -- there is no reason for people to feel like they have to tolerate the transgressions of journalists. they're not like a sacred guild we need to trust implicitly

sorry xp to max

oh sure. im not asking that people hold their tongues. a world where all people like and respect all journalists is one in which journalists are probably not doing their jobs!

(as I said in my post, I suspect this is protected speech, I'm less interested in it from a legal perspective than a why-would-you-do-that one)

oh i see. i mean its the same answer: the speech is protected because its newsworthy. gawker would publish the speech because its newsworthy.

This slope sure seems slippery.

http://cdn.indiewire.com/dims4/INDIEWIRE/88c326d/2147483647/thumbnail/680x478/quality/75/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fd1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net%2Ff9%2Fe5%2F3081c061409fa2746763d3d5279a%2Fnightcrawler-jake-gyllenhaal-7.jpg

yes well... if a gawker writer ever ends up re-enacting the plot of nightcrawler i suppose i will look upon these posts with regret

Grotesque scenes from the aftermath of an atomic leg drop

oh sure. im not asking that people hold their tongues. a world where all people like and respect all journalists is one in which journalists are probably not doing their jobs!

― max, Sunday, July 12, 2015 2:59 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

man this is a cop-out, akin to "comedians are SUPPOSED to offend people!", sorry. it's not your job to be a dick. the constitution protects your right to be a dick, in this case, but you're bein a dick

the job of a reporter tends to come down to "asking questions that people don't want to answer." in most industrialized societies this is dick behavior. thats all i mean, really. this is a good quote from the former deadspin editor whos now the executive editor of the gawker network, saying what i have been inarticulately circling around in this thread:

Our corrections policy is to correct our mistakes. Is that a good enough answer? I get the sense from these questions that you’re trying to measure the distance between what we do and what Responsible Journalists do. So I’ll help: Is our bar for publishing lower than, say, The New York Times‘s? Of course. Have we published stories that lacked perfect, according-to-Hoyle sourcing? Yes. We’re a tabloid at heart. You ask if we have a policy. There is no policy for this, or for anything, really. The whole point of the company is that we trust our reporters to be smart and judicious without having to adopt the ethical pretense that what they’re doing is anything but a sort of professionalized rudeness. I’ll get killed for this, but: Journalism ethics is nothing more than a measure of the scurrilousness your brand will bear. That’s it. Ethics has nothing to do with the truth of things, only with the proper etiquette for obtaining it, so as to piss off the fewest number of people possible. That works fine for a lot of news outlets; we don’t have to worry about niceties.

(from here: http://sportsjournalism.org/uncategorized/journalistic-standards-in-reporting-of-the-teo-hoax-qa-with-deadspins-tommy-craggs/)

i dont think its useful to think of journalists as "professionals," for one thing--the comparison with doctors is telling: journalists do not swear oaths; they are not required to attend journalism school; most importantly they are not legally required to receive state credentials to perform their jobs--but i also would dispute that most journalists want to be "respectable authorities" or are looking to "adopt standards."

they do benefit (theoretically, of course) from state shield laws, if they fit the associated definition of 'professional'.

anyway i don't think anyone here seriously thinks posting the video was actually illegal, let alone worth $100m in damages. it no doubt would be a chilling precedent were gawker to lose.

otoh posting the video was an asshole move. i guess it's technically fair to say that because people like looking at porn/seeing celebrities (and random female bystanders) humiliated, it was 'newsworthy'. and yes, gawker has a long history of similar asshole moves, but it's a little harder to watch when ppl one likes are involved and defending it as necessary to freedom when everyone knows it was for hits.

you're dodging the issue. the point is that there are sometimes competing interests that preclude publishing. you can continue to insist "but we're a tabloid" but that doesn't exempt you from legitimate criticism of your standards

xp

I mean I get what journalists do. I'm one of the biggest free speech stans on this board. and I get that in order to correct what are (rightfully) seen as the shortcomings of the traditional journalism industry, fuckups like these are going to happen. it would just be nice if the website's editors had a bit more moral integrity; you can defend the action on free speech grounds while conceding that a line was crossed and steps will be taken to improve

kevin, you're arguing a tautology

"i said you're wrong why won't you admit that you're wrong"

also how can you defend the action on free speech grounds but also concede that a line was crossed? anyone arguing against the publication of the video is saying that footage from sex tapes should not fall under the umbrella of free speech

but it's a little harder to watch when ppl one likes are involved and defending it as necessary to freedom when everyone knows it was for hits.

― mookieproof, Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:16 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is such a weird assumption--there are a huge number of things that gawker could do "for hits" that it didnt or doesnt. it makes me so mad, actually! i think would rather people take gawker at its word that it finds the things it publishes interesting than assume that kind of sad cynicism to the site. (& not to split hairs but the idea is not that publishing the 90 second video was "necessary to freedom," just that the government declining to suppress the tape is.)

also how can you defend the action on free speech grounds but also concede that a line was crossed? anyone arguing against the publication of the video is saying that footage from sex tapes should not fall under the umbrella of free speech

There are moral lines not dealt with by the legal system.

there are a huge number of things that gawker could do "for hits" that it didnt or doesnt

do tell!

A sex tape shouldn't have to be newsworthy to be published, more an issue of copyright really.

publishing "the fappening" photographs, for example xp

i mean i guess you don't have a page 3