CNN tracks down random reddit meme poster and threatens to release his information

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

in fear of being exposed as a racist troll? I love how the racist troll is being portrayed as the victim here.

Ninjavampire wrote:

Well we can probably be in agreement that the victim in this scenario is not the troll who condoned genoside and racial violence!

The troll might have been scum

But he was the victim here

Both of you are condoning threatening and intimidating people so who are you to judge anyone?

Ninjavampire

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Prison is state mandated and is only relevant where the law is broken, not merely when somebody's behaviour is distasteful but legal. Rehab is something a person enters into of their own free will, or as above, because they have violated the law and a court has ordered them to.



Bolded part is key. The media is not, and should never, ever be considered, a 'person of authority'. Their function is to report, not to directly tell anybody what to do.

Why shouldn't they report this guys name then? Does he have a right to be an anonymous troll spouting out hate speech?

Mr.H

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Bolded part is key. The media is not, and should never, ever be considered, a 'person of authority'. Their function is to report, not to directly tell anybody what to do.

This

And should be added that they are suppose to be impartial

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

The troll might have been scum

But he was the victim here

Both of you are condoning threatening and intimidating people so who are you to judge anyone?

the threatening and intimidation is only your "interpretation" of what happened. you cannot substantiate it.

hatrickpatrick

Ninjavampire wrote: »

Why shouldn't they report this guys name then? Does he have a right to be an anonymous troll spouting out hate speech?

I've said about a thousand times in this thread that they should have published his name. Publishing his name is not the problem. Offering not to do so in exchange for certain behaviour is the problem.

Ninjavampire

Mr.H wrote: »

The troll might have been scum

But he was the victim here

Both of you are condoning threatening and intimidating people so who are you to judge anyone?

I don't think it is a threat. I think they are well within their rights to publish this guys name as a person who was de facto endorsed by the president.

Mr.H

Ninjavampire wrote:

Why shouldn't they report this guys name then? Does he have a right to be an anonymous troll spouting out hate speech?

Nobody should spout hate speech but again if they had a problem they should report them to the authorities.

They took the law into their own hands and deserve to be ridiculed for it

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

the threatening and intimidation is only your "interpretation" of what happened. you cannot substantiate it.

Except they admitted it in their own statement........

They even threatened him in their statement ffs

hatrickpatrick

Ninjavampire wrote: »

I don't think it is a threat. I think they are well within their rights to publish this guys name as a person who was de facto endorsed by the president.

I agree. Engaging in a transactional agreement over the publication of information is an entirely different beast, and it is not something that any journalist, ever, should do. In any context, whatsoever. It's very black and white from where I'm sitting - a journalist should never use information that they have, and the possibility of publishing it, to extract literally anything from any person - favours, behaviour, comments, anything. Publishing it is fine. Not publishing it is fine. Publishing it if, and only if, a person doesn't behave the way the journalist wants them to behave - that is unjournalistic and unethical.

Mr.H

Ninjavampire wrote:

I don't think it is a threat. I think they are well within their rights to publish this guys name as a person who was de facto endorsed by the president.

No they're not within their right

Endorsed by the president........ wow

He retweeted it..........

ThisRegard

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The guy is a scumbag, regardless CNN should not be targeting private Citizens for making a harmless gif. This is a stunt to prevent Trump from doing it in the future. The tweet had 600k likes or whatever, CNN needed revenge.

Your self righteousness is hilarious. Did you look at this idiots other 'memes', such as the one were he published photos of CNN employees who he believes are Jews?

And you know full well that this is not simply because he made a gif, it's something you've been trying to put to the forefront of this story.

Ninjavampire

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've said about a thousand times in this thread that they should have published his name. Publishing his name is not the problem. Offering not to do so in exchange for certain behaviour is the problem.

But if they have the right to publish his name, what does it matter if they give him a chance to stop his hate speech?

lifeandtimes

Mr.H wrote: »

Except they admitted it in their own statement........

They even threatened him in their statement ffs

We don't know what was exactly in the agreement,it could have been his cause that they don't release his information,then they could have said "although we are in our rights to do so we won't but if you negate on your agreement we will". He could jave replied thats fair enough....You can't accuse somebody of threatening behaviour when it could have been his idea to put it in the clause,which CNN are within their right to make null and void should he break it and all their statement does is confirm a partial part of the agreement

hatrickpatrick

Ninjavampire wrote: »

But if they have the right to publish his name, what does it matter if they give him a chance to stop his hate speech?

They are overstepping the function of a journalist by doing so. Journalists are supposed to report the news, not use news not yet published as a tool of blackmail. Any form of "we will publish this IF you don't obey us" is profoundly unethical. I say this as somebody who has grown up totally immersed in journalism and the media - this kind of thing repulses me on a visceral level. It's a fundamental betrayal of journalism for any journalist to offer to withhold information in exchange for anything at all.

Mr.H

ThisRegard wrote:

And you know full well that this is not simply because he made a gif, it's something you've been trying to put to the forefront of this story.

If you believe he broke the law go to your local gardai station where they will take a statement

That's how society works. Not like conservatives who just threaten people and intimidate them into silence

Mr.H

lifeandtimes wrote:

We don't know what was exactly in the agreement,it could have been his cause that they don't release his information,then they could have said "although we are in our rights to do so we won't but if you negate on your agreement we will". He could jave replied thats fair enough....You can't accuse somebody of threatening behaviour when it could have been his idea to put it in the clause,which CNN are within their right to make null and void should he break it and all their statement does is confirm a partial part of the agreement

By saying that they can and will release info if they see the need. That is a threat

ThisRegard

Mr.H wrote: »

If you believe he broke the law go to your local gardai station where they will take a statement

That's how society works. Not like conservatives who just threaten people and intimidate them into silence

What are you talking about? Anyway, I thought the agenda is to push the lefties as liberals, not conservatives. See what happens when you go off script, you get confused when the wrong people start getting upset over something like this.

Ninjavampire

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They are overstepping the function of a journalist by doing so. Journalists are supposed to report the news, not use news not yet published as a tool of blackmail. Any form of "we will publish this IF you don't obey us" is profoundly unethical. I say this as somebody who has grown up totally immersed in journalism and the media - this kind of thing repulses me on a visceral level. It's a fundamental betrayal of journalism for any journalist to offer to withhold information in exchange for anything at all.

What are they withholding information in exchange for in this scenario?

hatrickpatrick

Ninjavampire wrote: »

What are they withholding information in exchange for in this scenario?

They are withholding the Redditor's dox, in exchange for his agreement to modify his behaviour. Journalists should never withhold any information in exchange for anything, ever, and they should not seek changes in peoples' behaviour. The very idea that a journalist's work would be conditional upon somebody changing their behaviour opens the door to the most unimaginable corruption, surely you must see that?

hatrickpatrick

ThisRegard wrote: »

What are you talking about? Anyway, I thought the agenda is to push the lefties as liberals, not conservatives. See what happens when you go off script, you get confused when the wrong people start getting upset over something like this.

CNN are most certainly conservatives. They attacked a liberal candidate for the democratic primary in order to help a conservative one.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Journalists should never withhold any information in exchange for anything, ever, and they should not seek changes in peoples' behaviour.

Hypothetical, unrelated to this: what if that information would endanger lives? Do you still think they should release it?

lifeandtimes

Mr.H wrote: »

By saying that they can and will release info if they see the need. That is a threat

But how can it be a threat when he made an agreement with them. It's not a threat it's a term. A term of an agreement he made with them. He didn't want his info being released which they are allowed to do,he wanted that in the agreement. They said Fine that's there but we don't like your hate speak(which he is allowed to do) so change your tune, he said fine and we all agree if one or the other breaks this agreement we are within our rights to continue what we plan to do.

No threat just a term of the agreement

If it was illegal the police will investigate it

hatrickpatrick

Skylinehead wrote: »

Hypothetical, unrelated to this: what if that information would endanger lives? Do you still think they should release it?

That's a call for the journalist to make, but it shouldn't be conditional upon somebody behaving as the journalist requests.

Christy42

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They are overstepping the function of a journalist by doing so. Journalists are supposed to report the news, not use news not yet published as a tool of blackmail. Any form of "we will publish this IF you don't obey us" is profoundly unethical. I say this as somebody who has grown up totally immersed in journalism and the media - this kind of thing repulses me on a visceral level. It's a fundamental betrayal of journalism for any journalist to offer to withhold information in exchange for anything at all.

Not really sure that helps anyone. I mean CNN are not gaining anything by not publishing the guys details. I don't think they should but it is an important fact. This reads more like a favour they are doing the guy under certain conditions. I mean their favour is not doing something I don't think think they should be doing in the first place but still.

There are a lot of assumptions about what said behind the scenes. Whst had CNN said to him before he made the apology given they hadn't spoken correctly?

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's a call for the journalist to make, but it shouldn't be conditional upon somebody behaving as the journalist requests.

You didn't say "somebody behaving". You said "in exchange for anything, ever". Very, very broad.

hatrickpatrick

Christy42 wrote: »

Not really sure that helps anyone. I mean CNN are not gaining anything by not publishing the guys details.

He's agreeing not to make any more memes attacking them, how in hell can anyone suggest they're not gaining anything?

This reads more like a favour they are doing the guy under certain conditions. I mean their favour is not doing something I don't think think they should be doing in the first place but still.

No journalist should ever do any journalistic favours for anyone under any conditions. That in and of itself is a betrayal of journalistic values.

Ninjavampire

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They are withholding the Redditor's dox, in exchange for his agreement to modify his behaviour. Journalists should never withhold any information in exchange for anything, ever, and they should not seek changes in peoples' behaviour. The very idea that a journalist's work would be conditional upon somebody changing their behaviour opens the door to the most unimaginable corruption, surely you must see that?

I think most people can see here that CNN chose to take the high road by not naming him. It doesn't benefit CNN if this guy stops being a racist.

hatrickpatrick

Skylinehead wrote: »

You didn't say "somebody behaving". You said "in exchange for anything, ever". Very, very broad.

And I stand by it. Journalism should never, ever be transactional. No journalist should ever decide to publish or not publish information based on what they are getting from the subject in return.

hatrickpatrick

Ninjavampire wrote: »

I think most people can see here that CNN chose to take the high road by not naming him. It doesn't benefit CNN if this guy stops being a racist.

He wasn't just being racist, he was specifically attacking CNN. And if they don't benefit, then why offer him a transaction? If that's the case, it's not only profoundly wrong and unethical, but moronically stupid as well.

Mr.H

lifeandtimes wrote:

But how can it be a threat when he made an agreement with them. It's not a threat it's a term. A term of an agreement he made with them. He didn't want his info being released which they are allowed to do,he wanted that in the agreement. They said Fine that's there but we don't like your hate speak(which he is allowed to do) so change your tune, he said fine and we all agree if one or the other breaks this agreement we are within our rights to continue what we plan to do.

When you are forced into an agreement it is a great.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And I stand by it. Journalism should never, ever be transactional. No journalist should ever decide to publish or not publish information based on what they are getting from the subject in return.

I think such absolutes just don't work in the real world, life is more nuanced than that. Surely it depends on the information and what the consequences of that information being released are?

Mr.H

ThisRegard wrote:

What are you talking about? Anyway, I thought the agenda is to push the lefties as liberals, not conservatives. See what happens when you go off script, you get confused when the wrong people start getting upset over something like this.

To be honest I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. I tend to go back and forth as my views are closer to the middle which means I don't always agree with one side.

I do find myself defending trump a lot though as we get no pro trump media coverage here and I find that a little disturbing.

Back to the point though I fail to see what you are on about. My post said tell the cops if you have an issue which is the right thing to do. If someone is being horrible then report it. Don't threaten them because it makes you even more vile than they are

osarusan

Ninjavampire wrote: »

I think most people can see here that CNN chose to take the high road by not naming him. It doesn't benefit CNN if this guy stops being a racist.

I don't think they took the high road at all.

It seems fairly obvious to me that this is CNN flexing its muscles in response to anonymous trolling, letting trolls know that they can be 'got at'.

If they were to respond at all, it should have been asking Trump how that content reached him, and why he is retweeting stuff from an account that also says X, Y and Z.

Neither do I think, though, that this is about freedom of speech for most of the posters criticising CNN here (hatrickpatrick excepted). It's just an opportunity for some CNN-bashing by people who aren't too bothered about doxxing or potential doxxing in general.

hatrickpatrick

Skylinehead wrote: »

I think such absolutes just don't work in the real world, life is more nuanced than that. Surely it depends on the information and what the consequences of that information being released are?

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Of course those considerations are relevant. I'm very specifically saying that a journalist should never engage in an EXCHANGE with a subject, making publication conditional on the subject's behaviour. That's what I'm saying. No journalist should ever say "whether I publish this information that you want / don't want me to publish, depends whether you do X that I want / don't want you to do.".

ThisRegard

Mr.H wrote: »

as we get no pro trump media coverage here and I find that a little disturbing.

Maybe because there's very very little to be pro Trump about. You can't force people to write editorials or stories if they don't agree with what they're writing.

lifeandtimes

Mr.H wrote: »

When you are forced into an agreement it is a great.

He wasn't forced he was afraid people would know all the awful things he posted. If he didn't give a crap about his details being released then there would be no problem.

CNN are allowed release them as their right as journalist's,he didn't want that so asked to make an agreement.

hatrickpatrick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

He wasn't forced he was afraid people would know all the awful things he posted. If he didn't give a crap about his details being released then there would be no problem.

CNN are allowed release them as their right as journalist's,he didn't want that so asked to make an agreement.

And CNN, as journalists, shouldn't have agreed to a conditional arrangement involving a story.

lifeandtimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And CNN, as journalists, shouldn't have agreed to a conditional arrangement involving a story.

Where is the law saying the shouldn't?

Ninjavampire

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Of course those considerations are relevant. I'm very specifically saying that a journalist should never engage in an EXCHANGE with a subject, making publication conditional on the subject's behaviour. That's what I'm saying. No journalist should ever say "whether I publish this information that you want / don't want me to publish, depends whether you do X that I want / don't want you to do.".

I think in this case, CNN were right in saying they could name this person but chose not to. I think it is perfectly ethical for CNN to show that online racists who contribute to attacking their organisation could possible face consequences by being named and shamed in the public sphere.

The_Valeyard

People are saying he post anti-Semitic comments. Is it proper 'I hate all jews'or is it someone against Israeli policy. Genuine Q.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Of course those considerations are relevant. I'm very specifically saying that a journalist should never engage in an EXCHANGE with a subject, making publication conditional on the subject's behaviour. That's what I'm saying. No journalist should ever say "whether I publish this information that you want / don't want me to publish, depends whether you do X that I want / don't want you to do.".

Yep I might have taken that slightly off

I was thinking a journalist might have to be coerced into not publishing some truly dangerous information, but then that is covered in the "other considerations".

In this case, I don't understand why they didn't just out him. Would have been far easier and more effective.

sbsquarepants

Ninjavampire wrote: »

I dont understand the outrage. This guy made a stupid, non-important meme, until Trump threw him into the spotlight. Trump endorsed this guy and CNN found evidence he was a racist troll. They didnt release his name but could have if they wanted to.

I don't give a toss about the guy who made the meme in the first place - but surely you can see that a "news" organisation using it power and connections to silence a member of the public is just not right?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It makes Trump look wreckless { not hard } and he'll be hesitant to do it again in the future.

Have to side with the above poster about CNN's intentions.

I'm amazed that there are people out there who see this as having anything whatsoever to do with this guy being racist or being an asshole. If it was they'd be pursuing him for those things, not turning a blind eye once he doesn't slag them off.

I'm also amazed that somebody at CNN couldn't foresee this back firing - it is unbelievably stupid what they have done. How could they possibly not envisage the backlash - Muppets!

wes

The_Valeyard wrote: »

People are saying he post anti-Semitic comments. Is it proper 'I hate all jews'or is it someone against Israeli policy. Genuine Q.

He singled out Jewish CNN reporters in meme.

hatrickpatrick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Where is the law saying the shouldn't?

There isn't one. It's a violation of journalistic ethics, not a violation of the law. As somebody whose family is deeply involved with journalism this is something that I find particularly important for a functioning democracy, and part of journalistic ethics is that you don't predicate publication on whether or not your subject does what they're told.

hatrickpatrick

The_Valeyard wrote: »

People are saying he post anti-Semitic comments. Is it proper 'I hate all jews'or is it someone against Israeli policy. Genuine Q.

He posted a graphic which listed all of the Jewish people who work at high levels in CNN, and presented this as evidence of the "Jews control the media" trope.

hatrickpatrick

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yep I might have taken that slightly off

I was thinking a journalist might have to be coerced into not publishing some truly dangerous information, but then that is covered in the "other considerations".

In this case, I don't understand why they didn't just out him. Would have been far easier and more effective.

Exactly. Outing him in and of itself wouldn't have been unethical, it's the fact that they're agreeing not to in exchange for something - in this case a change in behaviour on his part - that makes it unethical and a dangerous precedent.

Ninjavampire

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't give a toss about the guy who made the meme in the first place - but surely you can see that a "news" organisation using it power and connections to silence a member of the public is just not right?

The guy was calling for the mass extermination of muslims so I think they were right to indirectly encourage him to change his ways.

lifeandtimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There isn't one. It's a violation of journalistic ethics, not a violation of the law. As somebody whose family is deeply involved with journalism this is something that I find particularly important for a functioning democracy, and part of journalistic ethics is that you don't predicate publication on whether or not your subject does what they're told.

So it's down to ethics.

Anyway CNN can do as they like,a private citizen didn't want his details released to protect him and his family,CNN did him a favour,I say tjeres ethics in that and all the did after was say they can still exercise their rights

Mr.H

lifeandtimes wrote:

If it was illegal the police will investigate it

They can't unless he comes forward therefore identifying himself.

CNN get away with it

lifeandtimes

Mr.H wrote: »

They can't unless he comes forward therefore identifying himself.

CNN get away with it

Couldn't he just get (ironically) a gagging order?