3 ms·

Ahh, hm, according to this reddit comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/89br5e/whats_going_on_with_sexycyborg_and_vice_magazine/dzb53lm/?utm_c

by zasz 8y ago

Ahh, hm, according to this reddit comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/89br5e/whats_going_on_with_sexycyborg_and_vice_magazine/dzb53lm/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=OutOfTheLoop https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/89br5e/whats_...) you're right. It still seems like she said, I don't want to discuss X, Vice said, let's discuss X anyway. Even though that happened prior to publishing the piece, the meta-discussion of X shouldn't have made it into the final piece. If someone says a topic is off-limits, and you continue bring it up anyway, that's kinda douchey. I'm not going to defend attacking Vice on Twitter before the article got published, but the final product is definitely still douchey.

laptopchargerae 8y ago
according to reddit comment https://laptopcharger.ae/apple.html https://laptopcharger.ae/apple.html you are right Dunno what going on,then.
pulisse 8y ago
> It still seems like she said, I don't want to discuss X, Vice said, let's discuss X anyway. Even though that happened prior to publishing the piece, the meta-discussion of X shouldn't have made it into the final piece. I don't quite buy that. The subject of an article can dictate the terms of an interview (in this case, what subjects they're willing to discuss), but it's not part of journalistic practice to allow a subject to dictate what goes into the article itself. A journalist who allows themselves to bound that way isn't doing something in principle different than PR for their subjects. And Koebler never agreed to keep the 4chan/reddit rumors out of the piece. He agreed not to ask Wu about it in their interview, and he broke the spirit of that agreement if not its letter by only bringing the topic up in a subsequent email exchange instead of the interview itself, so he doesn't come out of this looking great. But he wasn't under an obligation to avoid writing about the controversy (which I think is pretty clearly ginned up nonsense) in the final article.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- zasz 8y ago
  In this case, we're talking about a country where even the phrase #metoo is censored and outspoken feminists end up in jail, so, Vice should've listened to Naomi Wu about what could and could not go into the article.
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  > but it's not part of journalistic practice to allow a subject to dictate what goes into the article itself. It should be when such information can have serious repercussions for the subject of the article, and these facts are mentioned and agreed upon before the interview takes place. It's ridiculous to hide behind journalistic standards to justify unethical behavior.
  - pulisse 8y ago
    I agree that the behavior is unethical, as I described at greater length here [1]. I'm just trying to bring some analytical clarity about what the fault was. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17697128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17697128
    - zasz 8y ago
      If Wu felt that writing about the controversy would damage her standing in China, then he shouldn't have done that. Seems pretty straightforward.

by zasz 8y ago

laptopchargerae 8y ago

according to reddit comment https://laptopcharger.ae/apple.html https://laptopcharger.ae/apple.html you are right Dunno what going on,then.

pulisse 8y ago

> It still seems like she said, I don't want to discuss X, Vice said, let's discuss X anyway. Even though that happened prior to publishing the piece, the meta-discussion of X shouldn't have made it into the final piece. I don't quite buy that. The subject of an article can dictate the terms of an interview (in this case, what subjects they're willing to discuss), but it's not part of journalistic practice to allow a subject to dictate what goes into the article itself. A journalist who allows themselves to bound that way isn't doing something in principle different than PR for their subjects. And Koebler never agreed to keep the 4chan/reddit rumors out of the piece. He agreed not to ask Wu about it in their interview, and he broke the spirit of that agreement if not its letter by only bringing the topic up in a subsequent email exchange instead of the interview itself, so he doesn't come out of this looking great. But he wasn't under an obligation to avoid writing about the controversy (which I think is pretty clearly ginned up nonsense) in the final article.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zasz 8y ago
In this case, we're talking about a country where even the phrase #metoo is censored and outspoken feminists end up in jail, so, Vice should've listened to Naomi Wu about what could and could not go into the article.
hackinthebochs 8y ago
> but it's not part of journalistic practice to allow a subject to dictate what goes into the article itself. It should be when such information can have serious repercussions for the subject of the article, and these facts are mentioned and agreed upon before the interview takes place. It's ridiculous to hide behind journalistic standards to justify unethical behavior.
- pulisse 8y ago
  I agree that the behavior is unethical, as I described at greater length here [1]. I'm just trying to bring some analytical clarity about what the fault was. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17697128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17697128
  - zasz 8y ago
    If Wu felt that writing about the controversy would damage her standing in China, then he shouldn't have done that. Seems pretty straightforward.