24 ms·

Gizmodo is much closer to journalism than anything else in the Gawker network, though that's obviously a "skinniest kid at fat camp" compliment. I won't say I'm

Gizmodo is much closer to journalism than anything else in the Gawker network, though that's obviously a "skinniest kid at fat camp" compliment. I won't say I'm a fan, but they do some good work on occasion. Sometimes solid reporting causes shaming, such as when someone does something wrong. It's unavoidable, if occasionally regrettable. Shaming is not unethical in that respect, it's simply exposition of facts. It's no less relevant who dropped the iPhone than who leaked Valerie Plame's name. They didn't go out of their way to shame him. They didn't say "he check out what this donkey did, I sure hope he gets fired for it". They in fact mentioned many times that it could happen to anyone. It's quite relevant who did it because it gives you a picture of how it happened. It's also a great look into Apple's closely-guarded secrecy. Who would have suspected that engineers are taking next-gen phones to bars? It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. The reaction against this is nothing more than "there but for the grace of God go I" which is not a valid reason to call for an apology. It's not that Gizmodo did anything wrong, which they clearly didn't, at least not in naming him. (Perhaps buying the phone crossed a legal or ethical line, but that was clearly not OP's problem.)

ubernostrum 17y ago
Sometimes solid reporting causes shaming, such as when someone does something wrong. It's unavoidable, if occasionally regrettable. Shaming is not unethical in that respect, it's simply exposition of facts. It's no less relevant who dropped the iPhone than who leaked Valerie Plame's name. The story in this case was that an iPhone prototype was found after being lost. The key thing here was the prototype itself, not the person who lost it. Contrast with the Plame case, where the central question was who leaked the information and why; your assertion simply doesn't hold up. They in fact mentioned many times that it could happen to anyone. Which supports the thesis that the identity of the specific person it happened to is irrelevant to the story. It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. When it's relevant or adds to the understanding of the story, yes. You've not explained how it meets either of those criteria, though. So I'll lay out the question clearly: what do we gain, in terms of understanding this story, from having the guy's name repeatedly tossed out for ridicule, that we wouldn't have without it? And what do we gain from stories like this? http://gizmodo.com/5520669/it-was-gray-powells-birthday http://gizmodo.com/5520669/it-was-gray-powells-birthday It's not that Gizmodo did anything wrong, which they clearly didn't, at least not in naming him. It's quite clear that they did several things wrong. This wasn't good journalism; it wasn't ethical; parts of it quite probably weren't legal. If you can't see the problems here, I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Yeah, clearly we don't agree. I take the "no stones unturned" approach to journalism. You report every fact that might be relevant and figure out (or let readers determine for themselves) what's relevant and what's not. The story to me isn't that it was found, it's how, a big part of which is who. I'm way less interested in whether or not the next unit has a front-facing camera or micro-sim card than how Apple (a company with better IP security than anyone) had one of their prototypes end up abandoned on a bar floor. As someone who may one day be in a position where I'm developing a product that requires secrecy, I want to know this stuff. All of it. I want to know how Apple keeps their secrets so closely guarded, and especially want to know points of failure. It's clearly not as important as government intelligence leaks, but who leaked is no less relevant to it's own story. I want to know who dropped the iPhone, because who the hell has the next gen iPhone? And who would be careless enough with such a thing to get drunk at a bar and leave it there? It's very interesting that he's in his mid 20's for instance. That tells me more about their organization than I previously knew, including that people way lower on the totem pole than I would have guessed are walking around with prototypes. (Or were anyway, that may have changed.) Also I meant they didn't do anything wrong by naming him. They may have done other things wrong (buying the phone perhaps). I'm not an attorney by any means, and I'd guess neither are most if not all of the people here speculating about legalities. I'm not particularly interested in that, though I can see why some would be. And as far as the birthday thing, that's why I said "loosely". It's moderately amusing that the guy lost it on his b-day, but by far the least interesting part. That's just good old Gawker flogging a dead horse and milking page views.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    Yeah, clearly we don't agree. I take the "no stones unturned" approach to journalism. Well, here's the thing. I work at a ("traditional"; been publishing papers since the 19th century) news organization and I actually have the word "journalist" in my job title (how that replaced "developer" is a story for another thread). I spend as much time working with reporters and editors these days as I spend working with coders (unfortunately, much of it in meetings, but such is life). So I've ended up with a lot of exposure to a a particular, I guess somewhat conservative, perspective on journalism, and that's what I'm applying when I think about how this story should be handled. So. Find out who it was and publish some information to give context? Sure, that's useful. Ruin the guy's future as well as current career by making sure his name's permanently associated with this? No; it doesn't help the story in any way to do that. But then, Gizmodo's obviously operating on a very different definition of "journalism" (more akin to the supermarket-checkout tabloids), and it's not one that I really approve of because it ends up putting the focus on the least relevant information in order to drive up the sensationalism and the pageviews.
anigbrowl 17y ago
It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. ...unless he just sold you something that should have been handed in to the police or Apple, apparently.

ubernostrum 17y ago

Sometimes solid reporting causes shaming, such as when someone does something wrong. It's unavoidable, if occasionally regrettable. Shaming is not unethical in that respect, it's simply exposition of facts. It's no less relevant who dropped the iPhone than who leaked Valerie Plame's name. The story in this case was that an iPhone prototype was found after being lost. The key thing here was the prototype itself, not the person who lost it. Contrast with the Plame case, where the central question was who leaked the information and why; your assertion simply doesn't hold up. They in fact mentioned many times that it could happen to anyone. Which supports the thesis that the identity of the specific person it happened to is irrelevant to the story. It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. When it's relevant or adds to the understanding of the story, yes. You've not explained how it meets either of those criteria, though. So I'll lay out the question clearly: what do we gain, in terms of understanding this story, from having the guy's name repeatedly tossed out for ridicule, that we wouldn't have without it? And what do we gain from stories like this? http://gizmodo.com/5520669/it-was-gray-powells-birthday http://gizmodo.com/5520669/it-was-gray-powells-birthday It's not that Gizmodo did anything wrong, which they clearly didn't, at least not in naming him. It's quite clear that they did several things wrong. This wasn't good journalism; it wasn't ethical; parts of it quite probably weren't legal. If you can't see the problems here, I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain.

mattmaroon 17y ago
Yeah, clearly we don't agree. I take the "no stones unturned" approach to journalism. You report every fact that might be relevant and figure out (or let readers determine for themselves) what's relevant and what's not. The story to me isn't that it was found, it's how, a big part of which is who. I'm way less interested in whether or not the next unit has a front-facing camera or micro-sim card than how Apple (a company with better IP security than anyone) had one of their prototypes end up abandoned on a bar floor. As someone who may one day be in a position where I'm developing a product that requires secrecy, I want to know this stuff. All of it. I want to know how Apple keeps their secrets so closely guarded, and especially want to know points of failure. It's clearly not as important as government intelligence leaks, but who leaked is no less relevant to it's own story. I want to know who dropped the iPhone, because who the hell has the next gen iPhone? And who would be careless enough with such a thing to get drunk at a bar and leave it there? It's very interesting that he's in his mid 20's for instance. That tells me more about their organization than I previously knew, including that people way lower on the totem pole than I would have guessed are walking around with prototypes. (Or were anyway, that may have changed.) Also I meant they didn't do anything wrong by naming him. They may have done other things wrong (buying the phone perhaps). I'm not an attorney by any means, and I'd guess neither are most if not all of the people here speculating about legalities. I'm not particularly interested in that, though I can see why some would be. And as far as the birthday thing, that's why I said "loosely". It's moderately amusing that the guy lost it on his b-day, but by far the least interesting part. That's just good old Gawker flogging a dead horse and milking page views.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Yeah, clearly we don't agree. I take the "no stones unturned" approach to journalism. Well, here's the thing. I work at a ("traditional"; been publishing papers since the 19th century) news organization and I actually have the word "journalist" in my job title (how that replaced "developer" is a story for another thread). I spend as much time working with reporters and editors these days as I spend working with coders (unfortunately, much of it in meetings, but such is life). So I've ended up with a lot of exposure to a a particular, I guess somewhat conservative, perspective on journalism, and that's what I'm applying when I think about how this story should be handled. So. Find out who it was and publish some information to give context? Sure, that's useful. Ruin the guy's future as well as current career by making sure his name's permanently associated with this? No; it doesn't help the story in any way to do that. But then, Gizmodo's obviously operating on a very different definition of "journalism" (more akin to the supermarket-checkout tabloids), and it's not one that I really approve of because it ends up putting the focus on the least relevant information in order to drive up the sensationalism and the pageviews.

anigbrowl 17y ago

It's also standard operating procedure in journalism to name who. ...unless he just sold you something that should have been handed in to the police or Apple, apparently.