3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSarah 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 agoSo 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"?