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

hatrickpatrick

Ninjavampire wrote: »

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

The media should never encourage anyone to change their ways in this manner. It's overstepping the bounds of journalism.

hatrickpatrick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

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

Bolded part is key from my point of view - the media should never do anyone a favour that compromises journalistic integrity, and particularly not in exchange for something.

Christy42

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

Can we just enjoy the absurdity of this statement. I really think cnn can survive someone making memes. I imagine there are thousands from today alone after this broke. Somehow cnn is still there. They got interested in this guy because Trump tweeted it and checked him out. They wanted an interview and it seems he asked for anonymity. They agreed on the basis that he stop posting racist stuff (and cnn stuff). Personally I feel they should have just agreed but all the talk of blackmail or any illegality is very premature outside the realms of speculation.

lifeandtimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Bolded part is key from my point of view - the media should never do anyone a favour that compromises journalistic integrity, and particularly not in exchange for something.

They protected innocent people. Like any court case or even the show cops,names are changed to protect the innocent. Thats what they have done here. His family who are innocent would have been adversly effected by this. As other journalists do they saved them from anything that would happen to them by not publishing his details

hatrickpatrick

Christy42 wrote: »

Can we just enjoy the absurdity of this statement. I really think cnn can survive someone making memes. I imagine there are thousands from today alone after this broke. Somehow cnn is still there.

So if they don't want him to stop doing it, why are they saying that he must stop doing it or be punished by them?

They got interested in this guy because Trump tweeted it and checked him out. They wanted an interview and it seems he asked for anonymity. They agreed on the basis that he stop posting racist stuff (and cnn stuff). Personally I feel they should have just agreed but all the talk of blackmail or any illegality is very premature outside the realms of speculation.

Well I'm not talking of illegality myself, merely an ethical violation. They shouldn't have agreed on the basis that he do anything - that is transactional in nature and therefore something I regard as unjournalistic. Publish the information, or don't. Publishing it if the subject doesn't behave as you have instructed him is unethical. It's not a journalist's place to influence behaviour in this manner, end of story.

hatrickpatrick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

They protected innocent people. Like any court case or even the show cops,names are changed to protect the innocent. Thats what they have done here. His family who are innocent would have been adversly effected by this. As other journalists do they saved them from anything that would happen to them by not publishing his details

And yet they say they will publish them if his behaviour does not change. That makes it transactional.

ohnonotgmail

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So if they don't want him to stop doing it, why are they saying that he must stop doing it or be punished by them?



Well I'm not talking of illegality myself, merely an ethical violation. They shouldn't have agreed on the basis that he do anything - that is transactional in nature and therefore something I regard as unjournalistic. Publish the information, or don't. Publishing it if the subject doesn't behave as you have instructed him is unethical. It's not a journalist's place to influence behaviour in this manner, end of story.

they aren't saying that as already pointed out to you. he apologised before contacting CNN and they agreed not to publish his name because they felt he was contrite. they reserved the right to withdraw from that agreement if they found he was not acting in good faith.

lifeandtimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet they say they will publish them if his behaviour does not change. That makes it transactional.

And that leaves the ball in his court which he won't break.

Everything at this point is speculative. He contacted them and could have said plesse don't publish my details and I promise not to do it again,they could have said fine and then just made a statement confirming what was agreed. They may not be influencing anything and it was all his idea.

But at the end of the day your argument it abiut ethics based on your family up bringing. CNN chose to agree to these terms

hatrickpatrick

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they aren't saying that as already pointed out to you. he apologised before contacting CNN and they agreed not to publish his name because they felt he was contrite. they reserved the right to withdraw from that agreement if they found he was not acting in good faith.

And again, that makes it a conditional, transactional thing. Which is something I for one believe that a journalist should never, ever engage in.

hatrickpatrick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

And that leaves the ball in his court which he won't break.

Everything at this point is speculative. He contacted them and could have said plesse don't publish my details and I promise not to do it again,they could have said fine and then just made a statement confirming what was agreed. They may not be influencing anything and it was all his idea.

But at the end of the day your argument it abiut ethics based on your family up bringing. CNN chose to agree to these terms

Let me just simplify my view: a journalist should never make publication or lack thereof contingent upon an agreement with a subject, or the behaviour of a subject. The future behaviour of a subject should not be a consideration in deciding whether to publish a story. Regarding this behaviour as acceptable opens the door to corruption.

Supposing the Guardian had treated Edward Snowden's stories like this? "Mr Clapper, we will refrain from telling the public that you've been spying on them as long as you promise to stop doing it"?

Christy42

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So if they don't want him to stop doing it, why are they saying that he must stop doing it or be punished by them?



Well I'm not talking of illegality myself, merely an ethical violation. They shouldn't have agreed on the basis that he do anything - that is transactional in nature and therefore something I regard as unjournalistic. Publish the information, or don't. Publishing it if the subject doesn't behave as you have instructed him is unethical. It's not a journalist's place to influence behaviour in this manner, end of story.

I am less sure how insistent they were on this point. So far they reserve the right to publish his name and details. I don't think they bothered with much demanding or at least no evidence of it has come to light.

I agree with you that they should have made a decision and gone with it for no agreement.

ohnonotgmail

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And again, that makes it a conditional, transactional thing. Which is something I for one believe that a journalist should never, ever engage in.

you have this backwards but as you seem unable to understand this i'll leave you to it.

osarusan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they aren't saying that as already pointed out to you. he apologised before contacting CNN and they agreed not to publish his name because they felt he was contrite. they reserved the right to withdraw from that agreement if they found he was not acting in good faith.

CNN tied to contact him first by phone and email, without any response from him.

He apologised the next day.

I think it's fairly obvious that his reaction was 'Oh F**k, they found me' and apologised.

Then he contacted them to ask them not to publish his identity.

without knowing the nature of the first contact from CNN and what was said to him, it's difficult to know exactly what happened. We don't know if they instructed him to apologise, offered not to publish if he apologised, or whatever.

Even if it was not something that CNN expressed or implied, there's hardly much doubt that his apology and deletion of his posts was based on anything other than the fear that CNN would publish his identity, though is there?

EDIT: There is a lot we don't know though. For all we know, he has agreed to give them more info about other trolls/network of trolls, and they are looking for bigger fish to fry.

ScumLord

I don't see why that meme would attract the attention of CNN. I thought it was funny and could see how both sides could find it funny. I think it's a bit petty for CNN to go after some nobody over a half arsed joke. Whatever their intentions they are essentially blackmailing him into silence now.

ohnonotgmail

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see why that meme would attract the attention of CNN. I thought it was funny and could see how both sides could find it funny. I think it's a bit petty for CNN to go after some nobody over a half arsed joke. Whatever their intentions they are essentially blackmailing him into silence now.

they are not going after him because of the trump meme. this has already been explained in the thread.

hatrickpatrick

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have this backwards but as you seem unable to understand this i'll leave you to it.

I really don't. CNN reserve the right to publish something if the subject doesn't behave as they want him to. That is unethical regardless of any other factors whatsoever.

silverharp

osarusan wrote: »

CNN tied to contact him first by phone and email, without any response from him.

He apologised the next day.

I think it's fairly obvious that his reaction was 'Oh F**k, they found me' and apologised.

Then he contacted them to ask them not to publish his identity.

without knowing the nature of the first contact from CNN and what was said to him, it's difficult to know exactly what happened. We don't know if they instructed him to apologise, offered not to publish if he apologised, or whatever.

Even if it was not something that CNN expressed or implied, there's hardly much doubt that his apology and deletion of his posts was based on anything other than the fear that CNN would publish his identity, though is there?

EDIT: There is a lot we don't know though. For all we know, he has agreed to give them more info about other trolls/network of trolls, and they are looking for bigger fish to fry.

one of the CNN responses was that "he apologised before we talked to him, which is not the same thing at all

ScumLord

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are not going after him because of the trump meme. this has already been explained in the thread.

Him posting racist stuff is just the justification CNN feels they can use to turn this guy into news because they didn't like his meme about them. Would they have gone after him if he hadn't posted something about CNN? No, because they don't really give a flying fig about randomers posting racist stuff on the internet, just like most people don't care.

MSM hates social media and the internet for taking away their power, they've been attacking kids on youtube for a few years now because they are popular. They're not even going after the same audience yet the MSM wants to attack private people, usually really young people for making silly content that becomes popular and MSM can't get a bit of the pie.

This was a petty move by CNN, they may have scared the shyte out of this one guy but they've stirred the pot when it comes to online racism. Threatening to turn the internet mob on someone is pretty bad.

lifeandtimes

ScumLord wrote: »

Him posting racist stuff is just the justification CNN feels they can use to turn this guy into news because they didn't like his meme about them. Would they have gone after him if he hadn't posted something about CNN? No, because they don't really give a flying fig about randomers posting racist stuff on the internet, just like most people don't care.

They investigated him after trump shared the content,he's the one who got the ball rolling and as journalist's they have every right to look into people who's stufd the president is sharing. Just happens the guy attacked CNN

osarusan

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Just happens the guy attacked CNN

You can't really believe that?

That of all the people posting that kind of shyte online, and of the stuff Trump is sharing, the one person they went after 'just happened' to be the guy who did the meme of CNN?

Call Me Jimmy

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?

There are probably philosophical outliers as with any guiding principle but you get his point.

If this truly is about him attacking 'potentially jewish' cnn members or him being a racist, then the law is there for CNN to avail of. If no law is broken, then tough, you don't get to blackmail people just because you have the capability.

ohnonotgmail

ScumLord wrote: »

Him posting racist stuff is just the justification CNN feels they can use to turn this guy into news because they didn't like his meme about them. Would they have gone after him if he hadn't posted something about CNN? No, because they don't really give a flying fig about randomers posting racist stuff on the internet, just like most people don't care.

MSM hates social media and the internet for taking away their power, they've been attacking kids on youtube for a few years now because they are popular. They're not even going after the same audience yet the MSM wants to attack private people, usually really young people for making silly content that becomes popular and MSM can't get a bit of the pie.

This was a petty move by CNN, they may have scared the shyte out of this one guy but they've stirred the pot when it comes to online racism. Threatening to turn the internet mob on someone is pretty bad.

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

sbsquarepants

Ninjavampire wrote: »

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

I imagine they'll launch a crusade against internet racism now!

This guy being an asshole is not in question, but also not what is important. What is in question is a huge global media outlet taking it upon themselves to put manners on a private citizen - that is overstepping the mark plain and simple, whether that private citizen is an asshole or not doesn't make any difference

Call Me Jimmy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

It's good to know you're comfortable trying to disparage someone's character and how little thought you give to throwing around serious accusations. If you're not careful with language it becomes meaningless

WinnyThePoo

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

It's good to know you're comfortable trying to disparage someone's character and how little thought you give to throwing around serious accusations. If you're not careful with language it becomes meaningless

Are you talking about the racist meme creator?

kunst nugget

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

That's not what he was getting at with his post whatsoever. Jesus…

Bushmanpm

Deliciously ironic that the media are trying to control or curtail someone else's freedom of speech. How would they react if THEIR FOS was being encroached on?
And then, if some don't like others FOS they just rename it 'hate speech'
Hahahahahahahaha
Right about now Orwell must be spinning in his grave!

Celticfire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I imagine they'll launch a crusade against internet racism now!

http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2017/04/27/lawsuit-claims-cnn-is-rife-with-racism.html

As many as 175 current and former employees of CNN have contacted lawyers about joining a class-action suit that alleges racism at the cable network.

Perhaps they should get their own house in order first.

Call Me Jimmy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Are you talking about the racist meme creator?

No I'm talking about the poster who was saying scumlord is comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

lifeandtimes

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Deliciously ironic that the media are trying to control or curtail someone else's freedom of speech. How would they react if THEIR FOS was being encroached on?
And then, if some don't like others FOS they just rename it 'hate speech'
Hahahahahahahaha
Right about now Orwell must be spinning in his grave!

Their freedom of speech is affected as they posters put in the agreement that they don't release his details,it works both ways.

No said CNN made this term. It's all speculation

hatrickpatrick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Their freedom of speech is affected as they posters put in the agreement that they don't release his details,it works both ways.

No said CNN made this term. It's all speculation

CNN very much framed it as such, and even if they didn't make it, the only correct response to being offered it would have been "no, we're journalists and as such we will not cut deals with a subject of one of our investigations. Whether we publish or not is entirely independent of your actions".

hatrickpatrick

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

No I'm talking about the poster who was saying scumlord is comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

That's a classic logical fallacy. I'm ok with somebody posting online that all Irish people are alcoholics, ergo I am ok with the statement itself.

silverharp

apparently its a 15 old kid, going to make it even worse for CNN

Bushmanpm

lifeandtimes wrote:

Their freedom of speech is affected as they posters put in the agreement that they don't release his details,it works both ways.

lifeandtimes wrote:

No said CNN made this term. It's all speculation

Sorry, I've read that a few times but can't decipher it. Please try again.

kunst nugget

silverharp wrote: »

apparently its a 15 old kid, going to make it even worse for CNN

I'm not entirely sure how that's going to make it worse for CNN… it kind of makes it look like less of a blackmail attempt by them and more of a stern admonishment to a child in that case.

ScumLord

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

Come on now ohnonotgmail, that kind of snipe is below you. As the Americans would say, I'm not defending what this guy said, I'm defending his right to say it without threats of life changing ramifications. I don't even know what racist stuff his said, all I've seen of him he's a silly badly done video.

Some people need to learn that a debate isn't telling the other side to shut up or else.

silverharp

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure how that's going to make it worse for CNN… it kind of makes it look like less of a blackmail attempt by them and more of a stern admonishment to a child in that case.

the follow on would be hate mobs going after the kid, if they had the kid's interests at heart which you are trying to suggest we wouldn't have heard about this.

hatrickpatrick

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure how that's going to make it worse for CNN… it kind of makes it look like less of a blackmail attempt by them and more of a stern admonishment to a child in that case.

This is obviously a ridiculous understatement, but even if it wasn't, it isn't a journalist's place to admonish *anybody*. They are there to report the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

kunst nugget

silverharp wrote: »

the follow on would be hate mobs going after the kid, if they had the kid's interests at heart which you are trying to suggest we wouldn't have heard about this.

I'd wager it's not really the kid's interest they have at heart but their own and naming and shaming a 15 year old wouldn't be worth the unanimous negative publicity that it would generate.

lifeandtimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is obviously a ridiculous understatement, but even if it wasn't, it isn't a journalist's place to admonish *anybody*. They are there to report the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah But who said they had to report It?

They reached out to the guy,he didn't answer he then released an apology and contacted them and asked them not to publish his details. They're under no obligation to report the guys details if they don't want too.

They just accepted the guys request and didbt publish something they may or may not were going to do. They don't gain more from reporting his details and people resding their article.

The part about they deserve the right to change the agreement if the other party breaks it is standard in mores agreements

kunst nugget

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is obviously a ridiculous understatement, but even if it wasn't, it isn't a journalist's place to admonish *anybody*. They are there to report the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

I must have imagined all those OpEds that I've seen in newspapers and news sites over the years. That's weird…

hatrickpatrick

Here's an analogy: a few years ago, a girl was caught on camera rather infamously ranting about how the people talking to her were "plebs" and how her dad worked for a particular accountancy firm. It was subsequently discovered that she was 16.

Would anybody be ok with RTE blackmailing her in a similar fashion, simply because she was spouting hateful speech in the aforementioned video, and threatening to publish her name if she didn't refrain from any future drunken rants?

It's beyond belief that people are defending CNN here. What they have done is unethical on two or three different grounds, not just one.

hatrickpatrick

kunst nugget wrote: »

I must have imagined all those OpEds that I've seen in newspapers and news sites over the years. That's weird…

And have you ever seen an op ed doxxing a private citizen, or threatening to do so, for "bad behaviour" - not illegal behaviour, just distasteful in the eyes of the author?

Ninjavampire

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is obviously a ridiculous understatement, but even if it wasn't, it isn't a journalist's place to admonish *anybody*. They are there to report the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep saying the same thing but it's objectively not true. Do CNN try to make money by reporting the news? Is that ethical, if perhaps they tell a story in a manner that would be more profitable for their shareholders? It's clearly CNNs objective to not only report the news but also appease their share holders.

Maybe the perfect example of what a journalist is equates to your vision but this is the real world. Things aren't black and white and there is no perfect journalist or organisation.

hatrickpatrick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Yeah But who said they had to report It?

They reached out to the guy,he didn't answer he then released an apology and contacted them and asked them not to publish his details. They're under no obligation to report the guys details if they don't want too.

They just accepted the guys request and didbt publish something they may or may not were going to do. They don't gain more from reporting his details and people resding their article.

The part about they deserve the right to change the agreement if the other party breaks it is standard in mores agreements

They shouldn't have made ANY such agreement with the subject of a potential news story. No journalist ever should. It doesn't matter whose idea the agreement was.

hatrickpatrick

Ninjavampire wrote: »

You keep saying the same thing but it's objectively not true. Do CNN try to make money by reporting the news? Is that ethical, if perhaps they tell a story in a manner that would be more profitable for their shareholders? It's clearly CNNs objective to not only report the news but also appease their share holders.

Maybe the perfect example of what a journalist is equates to your vision but this is the real world. Things aren't black and white and there is no perfect journalist or organisation.

And that's fine, but it makes them illegitimate tabloid journalism, no better than Fox News or the Daily Fail. Nothing wrong with that, but then they and their defenders need to stop pretending that they are serious broadsheet journalism.

kunst nugget

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And have you ever seen an op ed doxxing a private citizen, or threatening to do so, for "bad behaviour" - not illegal behaviour, just distasteful in the eyes of the author?

I have seen plenty of journalists write commentary pieces on news stories which goes beyond the remit of reporting the news, nothing more, nothing less as you stated in the post that I replied to.

hatrickpatrick

Ok, then let me rephrase: it is not for the media to order a private citizen to do something, under threat of consequences if they do not.

lifeandtimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Here's an analogy: a few years ago, a girl was caught on camera rather infamously ranting about how the people talking to her were "plebs" and how her dad worked for a particular accountancy firm. It was subsequently discovered that she was 16.

Would anybody be ok with RTE blackmailing her in a similar fashion, simply because she was spouting hateful speech in the aforementioned video, and threatening to publish her name if she didn't refrain from any future drunken rants?

It's beyond belief that people are defending CNN here. What they have done is unethical on two or three different grounds, not just one.

Blackmail-"the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them"

CNN aren't getting money.

In your analogy the girl would need to ask rte not to publish her details,not them threatening her with it. After that if they agree they can throw in any terms they want.

I.e. it's not blackmail if CNN don't gain financially and the person in this circumstance asked THEM not to publish,they didn't threaten him with it. It was after the fact when they posted their statement saying the can retract the agreement if the other party breaks a term of it

hatrickpatrick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Blackmail-"the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them"

CNN aren't getting money.

In your analogy the girl would need to ask rte not to publish her details,not them threatening her with it. After that if they agree they can throw in any terms they want.

I.e. it's not blackmail if CNN don't gain financially and the person in this circumstance asked THEM not to publish,they didn't threaten him with it. It was after the fact when they posted their statement saying the can retract the agreement if the other party breaks a term of it

Ok hang on a second. If blackmail is strictly only money related, then what, for instance, is using information to garner preferential treatment by a politician? Not blackmail?