4 ms·

It may be a journalist's job to probe, but it is a fellow human's job to have empathy. raganwald is perfectly correct in distinguishing between _why as a public

It may be a journalist's job to probe, but it is a fellow human's job to have empathy. raganwald is perfectly correct in distinguishing between _why as a public figure, and the man behind _why as a private one. The man behind _why clearly wished to remain private; why are his wishes not being respected? I think that you are being dismissive when you say, "a few phone calls". From the article, the author tried: asking RubyConf attendees, asking people he had been known to have a working relationship with, wrote him a letter, called his home phone, contacted a former employer, searched patent records to discover his current employer, and contacted his current employer, not to mention in the process naming his wife's Twitter account, publishing his real name, and publishing the name of his current employer. That's pretty poor form, and I don't think that "journalism" is an appropriate excuse. Like raganwald, I really liked every other aspect of the article. It's well written and I enjoyed taking the time to sit down and read it with a cup of hot chocolate. But -- and this is a big "but", one that eclipses everything in the article that I enjoyed -- I was tremendously disappointed at seeing the private man behind _why outed as he was in the article.

AnnieLowrey 15y ago
Hi thaumaturgy, Annie here. I'm completely receptive to the criticism of my treatment of the public persona / private person question -- as I wrote before, I expected it and appreciate everyone's insightful comments here. But I'd just like to push back on the idea that my reporting somehow constituted harassment, rather than straightforward reporting on a public figure – and one who had unfortunately already been outed and whose offline identity was widely known. We're talking about a phone message, an email forwarded from his office's receptionist, and a note, spaced over the course of a few months. I don’t think that constitutes harassment. My central objective was just making sure he had the opportunity to respond, if he wanted to, and would not be surprised when the piece came out. I did extensive interviewing among Rubyists and other programmers for the piece, and would often ask them about _why's work, his guide's influence, his work's influence on them, etc. A bunch delightedly brought up old war stories about him, some of which made it into the piece. The back channeling about his offline identity came, unsolicited actually, from those conversations. At any rate, I do appreciate all of the comments and criticisms of how I treat it in the piece. And am very appreciative of everyone’s compliments of the article as well.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure _why is aware that people wonder about him. He'd be in touch if he wanted to.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Being aware that people are curious about you is not the same thing as being given an opportunity to contribute and respond to an article in which you play a central role. Annie was entirely right to seek his input, and did nothing untoward in trying to track him down. I suspect the indignation here is a result more of the mythology surrounding _why and his place in the community than any actions on Annie's part. Were it some random person, an author perhaps, with whom HNers felt no bond, we wouldn't be seeing this issue as the dominant response to the piece.
    - thaumaturgy 15y ago
      I find it hard to imagine that people would have been as stirred up if she had tracked him down and given him the opportunity to respond to or contribute to the article, and then written only that the person behind _why wished to remain anonymous. I think the indignation here is that _why's real name and past and current places of employment have now been published on Slate.
      - redthrowaway 15y ago
        Had he communicated to her that he prefer his information not be published, I think it likely she would have acquiesced. Simply asking to "be left alone" does not imply not having anyone write about you, but rather that he didn't want to participate in the article. That's his prerogative, but I think people around here are holding Annie to a higher standard than they would for a journalist writing about a figure not so uniquely revered round these parts.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  Hi Annie, I think it's really neat that you're taking the time to respond to comments here. Thank you for that. I avoided the word "harassment" because I don't really think that what you did was harassment. But, I don't think I can agree to describe it as straightforward reporting, either. Straightforward reporting would have been statements like, "but the person behind _why remains a mystery to many after his infosuicide, having chosen for unknown reasons to remain as anonymous as possible..." It's true that his identity was known in some circles, but Slate isn't exclusive to those circles; regardless of how you or I want to describe it, in the end, you published the identity (and other personal information) of a person who wished to remain anonymous. Sometimes that can make for great journalism, but in this case, I think your article would have been even better if you hadn't done that. Thanks again for participating.

AnnieLowrey 15y ago

Hi thaumaturgy, Annie here. I'm completely receptive to the criticism of my treatment of the public persona / private person question -- as I wrote before, I expected it and appreciate everyone's insightful comments here. But I'd just like to push back on the idea that my reporting somehow constituted harassment, rather than straightforward reporting on a public figure – and one who had unfortunately already been outed and whose offline identity was widely known. We're talking about a phone message, an email forwarded from his office's receptionist, and a note, spaced over the course of a few months. I don’t think that constitutes harassment. My central objective was just making sure he had the opportunity to respond, if he wanted to, and would not be surprised when the piece came out. I did extensive interviewing among Rubyists and other programmers for the piece, and would often ask them about _why's work, his guide's influence, his work's influence on them, etc. A bunch delightedly brought up old war stories about him, some of which made it into the piece. The back channeling about his offline identity came, unsolicited actually, from those conversations. At any rate, I do appreciate all of the comments and criticisms of how I treat it in the piece. And am very appreciative of everyone’s compliments of the article as well.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
I'm pretty sure _why is aware that people wonder about him. He'd be in touch if he wanted to.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Being aware that people are curious about you is not the same thing as being given an opportunity to contribute and respond to an article in which you play a central role. Annie was entirely right to seek his input, and did nothing untoward in trying to track him down. I suspect the indignation here is a result more of the mythology surrounding _why and his place in the community than any actions on Annie's part. Were it some random person, an author perhaps, with whom HNers felt no bond, we wouldn't be seeing this issue as the dominant response to the piece.
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
    I find it hard to imagine that people would have been as stirred up if she had tracked him down and given him the opportunity to respond to or contribute to the article, and then written only that the person behind _why wished to remain anonymous. I think the indignation here is that _why's real name and past and current places of employment have now been published on Slate.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      Had he communicated to her that he prefer his information not be published, I think it likely she would have acquiesced. Simply asking to "be left alone" does not imply not having anyone write about you, but rather that he didn't want to participate in the article. That's his prerogative, but I think people around here are holding Annie to a higher standard than they would for a journalist writing about a figure not so uniquely revered round these parts.
thaumaturgy 15y ago
Hi Annie, I think it's really neat that you're taking the time to respond to comments here. Thank you for that. I avoided the word "harassment" because I don't really think that what you did was harassment. But, I don't think I can agree to describe it as straightforward reporting, either. Straightforward reporting would have been statements like, "but the person behind _why remains a mystery to many after his infosuicide, having chosen for unknown reasons to remain as anonymous as possible..." It's true that his identity was known in some circles, but Slate isn't exclusive to those circles; regardless of how you or I want to describe it, in the end, you published the identity (and other personal information) of a person who wished to remain anonymous. Sometimes that can make for great journalism, but in this case, I think your article would have been even better if you hadn't done that. Thanks again for participating.