5 ms·

I remember watching the original interview on cnn.com [0] and thinking it looked like the reporter wasn't really interested in getting good answers or giving an

I remember watching the original interview on cnn.com [0] and thinking it looked like the reporter wasn't really interested in getting good answers or giving an accurate story to her viewers, but was just going for a "gotcha". She seems to have the same strange misunderstanding of large-scale websites that people sometimes voice regarding youtube or google. At one point he asks if she reported an ad she's questioning him about. She says "why do I have the responsibility to report this to you when it's your website? You're the one hosting this online." It's as if she's completely unaware of the scale of the system, and expecting Craig to hand-verify each and every ad. [0] http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2010/08/03/craigslist.sex.trade.cnn.html http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2010/08/03/cra... - during the last half of the clip

credo 16y ago
Two days ago, almost all HNers agreed with Rackspace's decision to shut down PandaForm's website because of some user-generated content that seemed like phishing.Almost everyone (including me) was critical of PandaForm So I find it interesting that all current comments on this thread are critical of CNN. A journalist's job is to ask tough questions. I haven't seen anyone refute the fact that a huge amount of sex trafficking (of minors and adults) hapens through Craig's List. In the post, Craig talks about his "support for our troops and veterans" and his support for "Net neutrality". That support is great, but it is irrelevant when it comes to the question of sex trafficking of minor girls. So why should journalists not ask tough questions of the founder of Craig's List ?
- Kadin 16y ago
  There's a line between "tough questions" and "stupid questions." The reporter was pretty clearly asking the latter. Something like "wouldn't it be possible for you to filter ads based on keywords that suggest illegal activities," or "couldn't you use the same techniques that other companies use to block spam to block illegal content" would have been tough questions. But she didn't ask any of them; instead, she asked a facile 'gotcha' question about a particular post, in an obvious attempt to get him to say something embarrassing. It was a cheap, pandering bit of entertainment TV; if that's what 'journalism' has been reduced to, we ought to wish it a speedy death.
  - jfager 16y ago
    Here's the list, can you tell me which question you thought was stupid, and why? 1. Can people trust that children are not being sex-trafficked on Craigslist? 2. What are you guys doing to protect these girls? 3. [Craigslist says its screen these ads manually, but] look at this ad. It says young, sexy, sweet, and bubbly. Clearly here she writes $250 an hour. I mean what do you think she's selling in her bra and underwear? A dinner date? And she's in her bra and underwear? 4. Why do I have the responsibility to report this to you when it's your Web site?
    - Avenger42 16y ago
      (Disclaimer: I don't use craigslist, I've been to the site <10 times in my life, so I'm making assumptions about what's available to the end user in terms of reporting issues. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.) In my opinion: 1 is unfair. You can't say with 100% certainty that any popular website is immune from something like that, so he can't say "yes". He certainly can't say "no" without making the site look bad. So how does he answer? 2 is unfair. If you ask about a specific ad, they can look in the system and say "that ad was placed on X, it was reported as problematic by a user on Y, we checked it on Z and reported it to the police." If you say in general "what are you doing about 'these girls'" then you're making him look bad by saying "I don't know 'which girls' you're referring to." Again, if you don't give him a chance to make a proper answer, then you're not really being fair as a reporter. 3 is similarly unfair unless he's at his computer and can give you the information. Obviously the post in question is crossing the line, but what do you expect him to do about it right then? If they manually screen the ads, then someone's not doing their job right, but can you say with 100% certainty that everyone at CNN is doing their job right 100% of the time? Finally, 4 is unfair because if she'd actually reported the thing using the proper channels, then the post would have been gone before she'd have time to put together her story. But that would go against her interests, so it's much better to ambush him in person with an ad he's never seen before. On the other hand, if the question is the less-personal and less-exasperated "why do you rely on your users to police your site?" then that's a fair question. The underlying question for this reporter is this: Is your goal to get answers? Or is your goal to embarrass him for ratings? (EDIT: replacing "stupid" with "unfair".)
- Adam503 16y ago
  I don't have a problem with a reporter asking hard questions. I have a problem with reporters who are more interested in getting video that makes the reporter look heroic, than they are in getting answers to tough questions. Anyone seen any evidence this reporter made any attempt to continue to ask those questions at a later time. Or did she stop the interview the second she saw Newmark looked bad at the same time she yelled the questions once.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jfager 16y ago
If Craigslist itself claims that it can and does screen these ads, then why is it out of bounds for CNN to point out that it apparently can't or doesn't? That's not CNN "misunderstanding large-scale websites", that's CNN trying to expose a claim from Craigslist itself as false.

credo 16y ago

Two days ago, almost all HNers agreed with Rackspace's decision to shut down PandaForm's website because of some user-generated content that seemed like phishing.Almost everyone (including me) was critical of PandaForm So I find it interesting that all current comments on this thread are critical of CNN. A journalist's job is to ask tough questions. I haven't seen anyone refute the fact that a huge amount of sex trafficking (of minors and adults) hapens through Craig's List. In the post, Craig talks about his "support for our troops and veterans" and his support for "Net neutrality". That support is great, but it is irrelevant when it comes to the question of sex trafficking of minor girls. So why should journalists not ask tough questions of the founder of Craig's List ?

Kadin 16y ago
There's a line between "tough questions" and "stupid questions." The reporter was pretty clearly asking the latter. Something like "wouldn't it be possible for you to filter ads based on keywords that suggest illegal activities," or "couldn't you use the same techniques that other companies use to block spam to block illegal content" would have been tough questions. But she didn't ask any of them; instead, she asked a facile 'gotcha' question about a particular post, in an obvious attempt to get him to say something embarrassing. It was a cheap, pandering bit of entertainment TV; if that's what 'journalism' has been reduced to, we ought to wish it a speedy death.
- jfager 16y ago
  Here's the list, can you tell me which question you thought was stupid, and why? 1. Can people trust that children are not being sex-trafficked on Craigslist? 2. What are you guys doing to protect these girls? 3. [Craigslist says its screen these ads manually, but] look at this ad. It says young, sexy, sweet, and bubbly. Clearly here she writes $250 an hour. I mean what do you think she's selling in her bra and underwear? A dinner date? And she's in her bra and underwear? 4. Why do I have the responsibility to report this to you when it's your Web site?
  - Avenger42 16y ago
    (Disclaimer: I don't use craigslist, I've been to the site <10 times in my life, so I'm making assumptions about what's available to the end user in terms of reporting issues. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.) In my opinion: 1 is unfair. You can't say with 100% certainty that any popular website is immune from something like that, so he can't say "yes". He certainly can't say "no" without making the site look bad. So how does he answer? 2 is unfair. If you ask about a specific ad, they can look in the system and say "that ad was placed on X, it was reported as problematic by a user on Y, we checked it on Z and reported it to the police." If you say in general "what are you doing about 'these girls'" then you're making him look bad by saying "I don't know 'which girls' you're referring to." Again, if you don't give him a chance to make a proper answer, then you're not really being fair as a reporter. 3 is similarly unfair unless he's at his computer and can give you the information. Obviously the post in question is crossing the line, but what do you expect him to do about it right then? If they manually screen the ads, then someone's not doing their job right, but can you say with 100% certainty that everyone at CNN is doing their job right 100% of the time? Finally, 4 is unfair because if she'd actually reported the thing using the proper channels, then the post would have been gone before she'd have time to put together her story. But that would go against her interests, so it's much better to ambush him in person with an ad he's never seen before. On the other hand, if the question is the less-personal and less-exasperated "why do you rely on your users to police your site?" then that's a fair question. The underlying question for this reporter is this: Is your goal to get answers? Or is your goal to embarrass him for ratings? (EDIT: replacing "stupid" with "unfair".)
Adam503 16y ago
I don't have a problem with a reporter asking hard questions. I have a problem with reporters who are more interested in getting video that makes the reporter look heroic, than they are in getting answers to tough questions. Anyone seen any evidence this reporter made any attempt to continue to ask those questions at a later time. Or did she stop the interview the second she saw Newmark looked bad at the same time she yelled the questions once.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jfager 16y ago

If Craigslist itself claims that it can and does screen these ads, then why is it out of bounds for CNN to point out that it apparently can't or doesn't? That's not CNN "misunderstanding large-scale websites", that's CNN trying to expose a claim from Craigslist itself as false.