4 ms·

Why do you think this is public shaming? If so, majority of newspapers are about public shaming. It's actually decent investigation here.

ycombinete 10y ago
A common answer to this is that news papers are, ostensibly, "public interest shamers". That's the defense.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  This seems very much a situation of "public interest shaming", as the cheating directly harmed the legitimate runners of that marathon, and the marathon community has a legitimate interest in shaming/punishing/expelling caught cheaters (in addition to simply removing the fraudulent result) as a deterrent to potential future cheaters. It's similar to disqualifications for fraud or doping in most sports - you don't only remove the current result, you disqualify them from some future events as a 'punishment'/deterrent.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    > as the cheating directly harmed the legitimate runners of that marathon Did it really? Did she hurt any of them? Did she even affect their times? Did they lose out on any prizes?
    - dagw 10y ago
      Did they lose out on any prizes? Well she did take second place, so if nothing else she did deny someone a place on the podium.
creo 10y ago
It's made public so people can discus and judge. Problem with this approach is that it will not only shame, but also mark a target for offenders, so it's not only adjudication, it's a act of aggression. Think about police investigators. Why are they not publishing full names and faces of criminals? EDIT On second thought, public shaming is consequence of something more important. If race officials would pay for reporting legitimate offences there wouldn't be a need to ask for donations. So author could keep those investigations hidden.
- appleflaxen 10y ago
  This is utterly factual. If the facts are shameful, that's on the person who created the facts about them, not on the reporter.
leereeves 10y ago
Newspapers are about public shaming and a significant portion of the public is sick of it. I mean, look at what the WSJ tried to do to PewDiePie, how the rest of the media piled on, and how people reacted.
- pm24601 10y ago
  PewDiePie was a public figure already. The person in the article was not. The person caught cheating has no platform from which to defend themselves. PewDiePie made $15million from his platform.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 10y ago
    PewDiePie is hardly the first person this has happened to. A Huffington Post writer is at least as much a public figure as a scientist with the ESA, and has more of a platform for self defense.
  - purple-again 10y ago
    You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with. She put herself out there as a paid blogger with her name attached to her work. Shes as much a public figure in her niche circle as pewddiepie is a public figure in his niche circle. The money difference is irrelevant, the NASA scientists who made that announcement yesterday are much closer to her earning level than they are to pewdiepie and much more well known than either. She has the same platforms available to post her rebuttal as pewdiepie does, the medium she used for all her articles.
    - pm24601 10y ago
      > You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with. Lets look at US law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure) A public figure (like Pewpiedie) " A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure." The marathoner is not a celebrity nor does she base her livelihood on being a public figure. From a U.S. libel/slander perspective there is a clear legal distinction - its not my opinion.
Trundle 10y ago
It's a public post pointing out someones shameful act. How is that not textbook public shaming? What does the status of newspapers being public shamers have to do with it?

ycombinete 10y ago

A common answer to this is that news papers are, ostensibly, "public interest shamers". That's the defense.

PeterisP 10y ago
This seems very much a situation of "public interest shaming", as the cheating directly harmed the legitimate runners of that marathon, and the marathon community has a legitimate interest in shaming/punishing/expelling caught cheaters (in addition to simply removing the fraudulent result) as a deterrent to potential future cheaters. It's similar to disqualifications for fraud or doping in most sports - you don't only remove the current result, you disqualify them from some future events as a 'punishment'/deterrent.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  > as the cheating directly harmed the legitimate runners of that marathon Did it really? Did she hurt any of them? Did she even affect their times? Did they lose out on any prizes?
  - dagw 10y ago
    Did they lose out on any prizes? Well she did take second place, so if nothing else she did deny someone a place on the podium.

creo 10y ago

It's made public so people can discus and judge. Problem with this approach is that it will not only shame, but also mark a target for offenders, so it's not only adjudication, it's a act of aggression. Think about police investigators. Why are they not publishing full names and faces of criminals? EDIT On second thought, public shaming is consequence of something more important. If race officials would pay for reporting legitimate offences there wouldn't be a need to ask for donations. So author could keep those investigations hidden.

appleflaxen 10y ago
This is utterly factual. If the facts are shameful, that's on the person who created the facts about them, not on the reporter.

leereeves 10y ago

Newspapers are about public shaming and a significant portion of the public is sick of it. I mean, look at what the WSJ tried to do to PewDiePie, how the rest of the media piled on, and how people reacted.

pm24601 10y ago
PewDiePie was a public figure already. The person in the article was not. The person caught cheating has no platform from which to defend themselves. PewDiePie made $15million from his platform.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- leereeves 10y ago
  PewDiePie is hardly the first person this has happened to. A Huffington Post writer is at least as much a public figure as a scientist with the ESA, and has more of a platform for self defense.
- purple-again 10y ago
  You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with. She put herself out there as a paid blogger with her name attached to her work. Shes as much a public figure in her niche circle as pewddiepie is a public figure in his niche circle. The money difference is irrelevant, the NASA scientists who made that announcement yesterday are much closer to her earning level than they are to pewdiepie and much more well known than either. She has the same platforms available to post her rebuttal as pewdiepie does, the medium she used for all her articles.
  - pm24601 10y ago
    > You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with. Lets look at US law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure) A public figure (like Pewpiedie) " A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure." The marathoner is not a celebrity nor does she base her livelihood on being a public figure. From a U.S. libel/slander perspective there is a clear legal distinction - its not my opinion.

Trundle 10y ago

It's a public post pointing out someones shameful act. How is that not textbook public shaming? What does the status of newspapers being public shamers have to do with it?