4 ms·

I wonder why pg did an interview for a site that was going to go behind an (expensive) paywall and was going to be edited. I know that "fixing journalism" is so

I wonder why pg did an interview for a site that was going to go behind an (expensive) paywall and was going to be edited. I know that "fixing journalism" is something pg would like to see[1], and (pg, sorry to put words in your mouth here) maybe he felt a for-pay site aiming for quality journalism was the answer? But it still seems weird he did this interview. EDIT: I did read the article and know he was allegedly tricked, but my questions still stand. It was a long interview to just be a background about Jessica, and it was for a profile using the YC name to get $400 subscriptions. If they lied about the reasoning and then edited his words to say something completely different, I would have thought he'd be more outraged. [1] http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (see #3)

macleanjr 13y ago
If you read his essay, he states that this wasn't an "interview", the reporter was doing background for another story on Jessica. It was never intended to be an interview.
- pdonis 13y ago
  Which makes the fact that the material was published as if it had been an interview, without any explanation of the actual circumstances, particularly bothersome IMO.
  - joshdick 13y ago
    Yeah, publishing remarks made to a reporter as part of background on a story is unethical.
    - cookiecaper 13y ago
      Publishing anything that's not presented in a "this is blatantly on the record" or "this is blatantly in public and observable/reportable by anyone" context is unethical. Unfortunately, this happens all the time because it generates a lot of buzz for the outlet, just as happened here. In fact, there are outlets whose entire business is made up of publishing "off the record" stuff, like tabloids.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      Publishing remarks made as background when you make it clear that they were made as background and that they weren't part of an actual interview is not unethical--though it is still unfair to the person being quoted, IMO, for reasons which are well explained by pg in his article. Publishing remarks made as part of background for a completely different topic, in such a way as to make it seem as though they were made during an actual interview on the topic quoted, is unethical, IMO. And since that's what happened, I stand by my remark.
      - loteck 13y ago
        Publishing remarks made as background when you make it clear that they were made as background and that they weren't part of an actual interview is not unethical So, you're just wrong about this. Filed under: Ethics - Human Sources: "'On background' is a kind of limited license to print what the source gives you without using the source's name." http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-sources/#7 http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-s... And, knowing many journalists, none of them would ever print something given to them on background with the source's name attached. It is unethical.
        pdonis 13y ago
        I didn't actually use the specific phrase "on background", but perhaps I should have said "given as background on a different topic" or words to that effect to make myself clearer. I don't think pg was saying that he made his remarks with an understanding that they would not be printed as coming from him; I think he was just saying that he thought he was giving background information for a profile on Jessica Livingston, not answering questions as part of a formal interview on the topic of women startup founders.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cookiecaper 13y ago
I'm sure he's unhappy about it, and feels betrayed. What good would it do for him to make an expression of that a major component of his response? Wouldn't that just result in another witch hunt like the one PG is trying to quell with this piece? He can handle his personal resentment in a more quiet context and save everyone else the chaos.
jl 13y ago
Paul talked to the reporter about me (for the profile being written) before The Information had launched. Neither of us knew it would be behind a paywall.
- gkoberger 13y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. The paywall was my main curiosity. Was/will the profile ever be published? EDIT: Found it: https://www.theinformation.com/When-Founders-Fight-They-Call-Jessica-Livingston https://www.theinformation.com/When-Founders-Fight-They-Call...
pervycreeper 13y ago
I think this certainly sheds more light on the value proposition that this site is offering to prospective subscribers.

macleanjr 13y ago

If you read his essay, he states that this wasn't an "interview", the reporter was doing background for another story on Jessica. It was never intended to be an interview.

pdonis 13y ago
Which makes the fact that the material was published as if it had been an interview, without any explanation of the actual circumstances, particularly bothersome IMO.
- joshdick 13y ago
  Yeah, publishing remarks made to a reporter as part of background on a story is unethical.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    Publishing anything that's not presented in a "this is blatantly on the record" or "this is blatantly in public and observable/reportable by anyone" context is unethical. Unfortunately, this happens all the time because it generates a lot of buzz for the outlet, just as happened here. In fact, there are outlets whose entire business is made up of publishing "off the record" stuff, like tabloids.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    Publishing remarks made as background when you make it clear that they were made as background and that they weren't part of an actual interview is not unethical--though it is still unfair to the person being quoted, IMO, for reasons which are well explained by pg in his article. Publishing remarks made as part of background for a completely different topic, in such a way as to make it seem as though they were made during an actual interview on the topic quoted, is unethical, IMO. And since that's what happened, I stand by my remark.
    - loteck 13y ago
      Publishing remarks made as background when you make it clear that they were made as background and that they weren't part of an actual interview is not unethical So, you're just wrong about this. Filed under: Ethics - Human Sources: "'On background' is a kind of limited license to print what the source gives you without using the source's name." http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-sources/#7 http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-s... And, knowing many journalists, none of them would ever print something given to them on background with the source's name attached. It is unethical.
      - pdonis 13y ago
        I didn't actually use the specific phrase "on background", but perhaps I should have said "given as background on a different topic" or words to that effect to make myself clearer. I don't think pg was saying that he made his remarks with an understanding that they would not be printed as coming from him; I think he was just saying that he thought he was giving background information for a profile on Jessica Livingston, not answering questions as part of a formal interview on the topic of women startup founders.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

cookiecaper 13y ago

I'm sure he's unhappy about it, and feels betrayed. What good would it do for him to make an expression of that a major component of his response? Wouldn't that just result in another witch hunt like the one PG is trying to quell with this piece? He can handle his personal resentment in a more quiet context and save everyone else the chaos.

jl 13y ago

Paul talked to the reporter about me (for the profile being written) before The Information had launched. Neither of us knew it would be behind a paywall.

gkoberger 13y ago
Thanks for the clarification. The paywall was my main curiosity. Was/will the profile ever be published? EDIT: Found it: https://www.theinformation.com/When-Founders-Fight-They-Call-Jessica-Livingston https://www.theinformation.com/When-Founders-Fight-They-Call...

pervycreeper 13y ago

I think this certainly sheds more light on the value proposition that this site is offering to prospective subscribers.