Comment by alexqgb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexqgb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

10) Exec discusses hiring journalists to do journalism to journalists. You know, digging up stuff about their personal life, kind of like (1) on this list.

I'm sorry, but you're flat out wrong about this, You're also hilariously ignorant about the most basic aspects of journalistic ethics.

The million dollar "opposition research" effort that BuzzFeedBen reported on is NOT journalism. Do journalists dig up dirt? Yes. Do they publish it? You bet. But here's the critical difference: The do it under their own names, using bylines at the very top of the page.

Contrast that with what the asshat from Uber said when he was asked if his plan to personally violate unfriendly journalists might backfire with, you know, actual journalists. What he said was "Nobody will ever know it was us".

Now I realize that sound ethical reasoning is not your strong suit. I mean, your comment history speaks for itself. But surely, even you can tell the difference between publishing information that's in the public interest under a proper byline and conducting personal vendettas on the company dime then doing everything you can to conceal your tracks. I mean, this is not a subtle distinction. In truth, this is the difference between ethical and wildly unethical, between acceptable and borderline criminal, between journalism and manifestly not journalism.

Further down this thread you have the temerity to upbraid others for "intellectual dishonesty". I promise you, dude, getting this personal is not a game you are in any shape to play. If you try, you will lose. And as an aside, I'm glad to see that others are also calling you out for the dishonesty in the way you've framed (read: misrepresented) a number of the issues you listed.

I won't tell you to quit while you're ahead because you are not ahead. But maybe consider quitting before you fall even further behind.

Ok, lets roll with your idea that anonymously publishing true information is unethical.

If a woman blogged unkind and sexist behavior at a tech company, but hid her name to avoid the backlash (like Michael), that would be unethical. I guess she'd be an "asshat", right? Same thing for a journalist using an anonymous source?

Bad journalistic ethics? https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/that-time-i-was-caught-c...

I do indeed have a poor understanding of ethics and I'm pretty open about it. It's hardly an easy subject. Often I think I've found the "critical element" and suddenly swapping around the personalities radically changes my intuition.

  If a woman blogged unkind and sexist behavior at a tech company, but 
  hid her name to avoid the backlash (like Michael), that would be 
  unethical. I guess she'd be an "asshat", right? Same thing for a 
  journalist using an anonymous source?

Did you just compare a woman blogging about a legitimate grievance that makes her work environment intolerable to someone suggesting "Fair game" practices a la Scientology for criticizing his company?

Yes. That's what makes ethics hard.

According to alex, the "critical difference" is anonymity. On this dimension, the sympathetic figure and the big jerk do not differ. So if he is correct about anonymity, then they are indeed comparable. The point is to test whether he really believes his stated principle or whether it's merely a convenient justification to criticize big jerks that he dislikes.

If you think that's not right, that's fine. Then come up with your own principle separating Emil Michael's journalism proposal from Pando/Valleywag. I'll repeat this exercise - trying to come up with a sympathetic figure on the other side of your principle and see if you still support the conclusions.

That's how you test whether your ethical principles are really valid.

Your points are totally valid, and I agree with you insomuch that I think the comment you replied to is a poorly-informed work of reductionism, but you're being very abrasive yourself as well.

You practically gave your parent commenter a verbal beat-down over his grasp of journalistic ethics. The guy said a bunch of mostly wrong things, but he made a few good points, too!

Sorry. For what it's worth, it wasn't his poor grasp of journalistic ethics that attracted my opprobrium. The sharply negative reaction was prompted by the general dishonesty of his remarks and specifically his tendency to reframe the remarks of others in a way that egregiously misconstrued or misrepresented what they had to say.

I'm afraid this is a non-apology that does the same thing all over again.

Let's suppose you're 100% right. Please don't squander that rightness on pejorative epithets and personal attacks. Doing so is wrong, breaks the HN guidelines, makes you look like the jerk in the argument, and makes your position seem weak. That last point is a big deal: since by hypothesis you're right, roiling the waters like this impedes the pursuit of the truth for everyone.

Instead, identify what's wrong and point it out clearly without personal attacks. That's easier said than done, of course, but by hypothesis it has to be possible, and it's your duty to honest readers to try.

Fair points, duly noted.

If you hate yummyfajitas you should probably ignore his posts. Your answers deserve down votes and flags.

Especially calling someone a "blithering idiot" is clearly agInst guidelines.

If you think he's said something flag-worthy or downvote worty just flag it or downvote it and ignore it.

Yeesh I agree with your comment overall but what's the point of making it 50% ad hominem?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com