3 ms·

I'm not sure if you really don't understand or are just arguing to be provocative, but I'll play along to make the point. It's morally equivalent to saying tha

I'm not sure if you really don't understand or are just arguing to be provocative, but I'll play along to make the point. It's morally equivalent to saying that you would fund a smear campaign against a judge or juror that ruled against you. It's one small step from making threats of physical violence to silence negative reporting. The press is considered an independent 3rd party bystander that is a crucial underpinning of any functioning democracy. Making aggressive threats against the press threatens the roots of civilized society, and is "abhorrent" because it's a tactic used by nearly every oppressive/fascist regime.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Are journalists who dig up dirt without making threats a "small step" from people who use violence against people without making threats first? There is a core difference between threats of violence (such as what is done by oppressive regimes) and threats of telling the truth. And it's a bit silly to call Pando and Sarah Lacy an "independent 3rd party bystander". The entire enterprise is an extremely opinionated anti-tech enterprise - kind of like what the Uber execs proposed building, just with a slightly different target. It sounds like you are saying the people who call themselves independent media deserve special privileges that the rest of us don't get. Is that correct?
- klochner 12y ago
  Sarah Lacy would be skewered by the public if she said her goal was digging up dirt against a specific individual. Similarly, she'd probably catch some negative press if she made questionable statements in a GQ article. So no, she doesn't get special privileges. If Uber wants to open a newspaper to advance their political agenda, they at least have to go through the pretense of reporting on everything, a la Rupert Murdoch.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    So the act of digging up dirt is acceptable. It's only doing it in a targeted manner, rather than opportunistically, that's the problem. I'm sure she might catch negative press - lots of harmless behavior creates negative press. I'm not asking how to manage the media, I have no interest in being a PR flack. I'm asking whether reporting on her questionable statements (the sort of thing opposition researchers do) would be "abhorrent". Similarly, would exposing and reporting on her personal emails and other parts of her private life (as Pando has done to Evan Spiegel) be "abhorrent"?
pravda 12y ago
>It's one small step from making threats of physical violence to silence negative reporting. You gotta be kidding me! You really think that journalists should be able to write whatever false, defamatory nonsense they please, free from any consequence? I would guess you have no experience with journalists.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  That would be libel and could be handled in court. Most civilizations left Eye-for-an-eye justice behind long ago.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Are journalists who dig up dirt without making threats a "small step" from people who use violence against people without making threats first? There is a core difference between threats of violence (such as what is done by oppressive regimes) and threats of telling the truth. And it's a bit silly to call Pando and Sarah Lacy an "independent 3rd party bystander". The entire enterprise is an extremely opinionated anti-tech enterprise - kind of like what the Uber execs proposed building, just with a slightly different target. It sounds like you are saying the people who call themselves independent media deserve special privileges that the rest of us don't get. Is that correct?

klochner 12y ago
Sarah Lacy would be skewered by the public if she said her goal was digging up dirt against a specific individual. Similarly, she'd probably catch some negative press if she made questionable statements in a GQ article. So no, she doesn't get special privileges. If Uber wants to open a newspaper to advance their political agenda, they at least have to go through the pretense of reporting on everything, a la Rupert Murdoch.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  So the act of digging up dirt is acceptable. It's only doing it in a targeted manner, rather than opportunistically, that's the problem. I'm sure she might catch negative press - lots of harmless behavior creates negative press. I'm not asking how to manage the media, I have no interest in being a PR flack. I'm asking whether reporting on her questionable statements (the sort of thing opposition researchers do) would be "abhorrent". Similarly, would exposing and reporting on her personal emails and other parts of her private life (as Pando has done to Evan Spiegel) be "abhorrent"?

pravda 12y ago

>It's one small step from making threats of physical violence to silence negative reporting. You gotta be kidding me! You really think that journalists should be able to write whatever false, defamatory nonsense they please, free from any consequence? I would guess you have no experience with journalists.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
That would be libel and could be handled in court. Most civilizations left Eye-for-an-eye justice behind long ago.