5 ms·

Context: The POTUS broadcasted the gif. Afterward, CNN claimed to have found the original creator, who CNN had kept anonymous but reserved the right to de-anony

Context: The POTUS broadcasted the gif. Afterward, CNN claimed to have found the original creator, who CNN had kept anonymous but reserved the right to de-anonymize them if circumstances warranted.

protomyth 8y ago
It was the conditions of reserved the right to de-anonymize them if circumstances warranted that made CNN look bad.
- dnomad 8y ago
  CNN only "looked bad" to people who are already hopelessly biased. Investigating sources of government propaganda is exactly what the media should be doing to any sane person. It's unfortunate though that CNN chose to give the guy an out. The protocol here should be maximum disclosure.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Retric 8y ago
  I find CNN's behavior completely reasonable. Basically, they investigated and then showed gasp discretion. Yet, people somehow think they did something wrong? The issue is the implication, that if the guy had not apologized they would then do something. Instead of only doing something if the guy started sending death threats or something.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Basically, they investigated and then showed gasp discretion. Yet, people somehow think they did something wrong? The problem is it seems they used their journalistic position to blackmail someone into a particular course of action, and they are using the threat of future blackmail/doxxing to enforce continued compliance from that person. IMHO, it's journalists' job to report newsworthy facts to the public. It's unethical for them to either hide or reveal facts based on other agendas, which include such small agendas as getting a particular reddit jerk to be a bit more circumspect. > The issue is the implication, that if the guy had not apologized they would then do something. Instead of only doing something if the guy started sending death threats or something. Was the creator of the gif actually sending death threats and the like, or is that something you made up?
    - Retric 8y ago
      > The problem is it seems they used their journalistic position to blackmail someone Now, if CNN actually threatened the guy that's not ok. But, this comes down to what you assumed might have happened, not something that we know actually happened. Another possibility is they called the guy up for a story and he was instantly apologetic on his own initiative. > Was the creator of the gif actually.. I said "if the guy started" as I assumed he had not done so. I am simply saying treating such things as potentially serous signs of another possible newsroom shooting in the making is understandable. Not because of his actions are unreasonable, rather because of crazy people also doing similar things in the past. Organizations of this size are already paying people to do this stuff, the guy happened to hit the radar enough that he was next on the list.
creaghpatr 8y ago
Here is what CNN printed: >CNN is not publishing "HanAholeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. >CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...

Context: The POTUS broadcasted the gif. Afterward, CNN claimed to have found the original creator, who CNN had kept anonymous but reserved the right to de-anonymize them if circumstances warranted.

protomyth 8y ago

It was the conditions of reserved the right to de-anonymize them if circumstances warranted that made CNN look bad.

dnomad 8y ago
CNN only "looked bad" to people who are already hopelessly biased. Investigating sources of government propaganda is exactly what the media should be doing to any sane person. It's unfortunate though that CNN chose to give the guy an out. The protocol here should be maximum disclosure.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Retric 8y ago
I find CNN's behavior completely reasonable. Basically, they investigated and then showed gasp discretion. Yet, people somehow think they did something wrong? The issue is the implication, that if the guy had not apologized they would then do something. Instead of only doing something if the guy started sending death threats or something.
- 394549 8y ago
  > Basically, they investigated and then showed gasp discretion. Yet, people somehow think they did something wrong? The problem is it seems they used their journalistic position to blackmail someone into a particular course of action, and they are using the threat of future blackmail/doxxing to enforce continued compliance from that person. IMHO, it's journalists' job to report newsworthy facts to the public. It's unethical for them to either hide or reveal facts based on other agendas, which include such small agendas as getting a particular reddit jerk to be a bit more circumspect. > The issue is the implication, that if the guy had not apologized they would then do something. Instead of only doing something if the guy started sending death threats or something. Was the creator of the gif actually sending death threats and the like, or is that something you made up?
  - Retric 8y ago
    > The problem is it seems they used their journalistic position to blackmail someone Now, if CNN actually threatened the guy that's not ok. But, this comes down to what you assumed might have happened, not something that we know actually happened. Another possibility is they called the guy up for a story and he was instantly apologetic on his own initiative. > Was the creator of the gif actually.. I said "if the guy started" as I assumed he had not done so. I am simply saying treating such things as potentially serous signs of another possible newsroom shooting in the making is understandable. Not because of his actions are unreasonable, rather because of crazy people also doing similar things in the past. Organizations of this size are already paying people to do this stuff, the guy happened to hit the radar enough that he was next on the list.

creaghpatr 8y ago

Here is what CNN printed: >CNN is not publishing "HanAholeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. >CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...