3 ms·

Maybe you could elucidate this more clearly. I think its quite correct. (Also, if humor is not your forte, I'm sorry).

by 001sky 12y ago

alexqgb 12y ago
I wasn't trying to be funny. I was pointing out that it's out of line to accuse BuzzFeedBen of being unethical when he was doing straight and fully by-the-book public interest journalism.
- 001sky 12y ago
  The buzz-feed guy was not invited. He was a +1 of a guest. Which explains, but doesn't excuse, his ignorance. That detail makes the author a douchebag.[1] (And I'm not an Uber fan boy or apologist. Just sayin). [1] Article source: A BuzzFeed editor was invited to the dinner by the journalist Michael Wolff, who later said that he had failed to communicate that the gathering would be off the record.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    And that means the fault (if there is one) is Wolff's, not Ben's. I say "if" because if there's one instance in which it seems like a journalist can permissibly break his word of confidentiality (or conveniently neglect to mention to another journalist that those rules apply) it's when a high-profile person stands up and publicly declares his plan for using $1 million in company funds to personally violate yet another journalist who had the temerity to write negative stories about his company. (Maybe if any there are any working journalists reading this thread they can chime in here?) In the meantime, the original point stands: there's no sign that Ben knowingly broke the rules and even if there were, it's insane to say that this violation is remotely comparable to the one he was reporting.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      When the press behaves un-ethically they invite other to turn the same methods on the press. Thats a big problem and this bizzare turn of events seems to illustrate it quite well. The uber stuff is pretty lame, but these guys in hindsight almost seem to prove his point. When your journalists are un-ethical gutter dwellers, they lose any moral high ground. The argument that they should face the same scrutiny as there subjects almost starts to seem reasonable. In this case, it would seem, everything is self-serving to buzz-feed. That creates a credibility issue for them. I could pre-text my way around any confidenctiality restrictions here in 30 seconds--all it takes is the assumption of two (not just one) unethical journalists in collusion. Thats basically what I assumed when reading how one invited the other, wihout disclosure of the ground rules, etc. The problem here, is not that this happened or that that happened. Its that neither you nor I can tell with any certainty. And that's why I think the (The Onion style) cynical cliff-note is actually the true story here. A pox on all their houses.

Maybe you could elucidate this more clearly. I think its quite correct. (Also, if humor is not your forte, I'm sorry).

by 001sky 12y ago

Maybe you could elucidate this more clearly. I think its quite correct. (Also, if humor is not your forte, I'm sorry).

I wasn't trying to be funny. I was pointing out that it's out of line to accuse BuzzFeedBen of being unethical when he was doing straight and fully by-the-book public interest journalism.

001sky 12y ago
The buzz-feed guy was not invited. He was a +1 of a guest. Which explains, but doesn't excuse, his ignorance. That detail makes the author a douchebag.[1] (And I'm not an Uber fan boy or apologist. Just sayin). [1] Article source: A BuzzFeed editor was invited to the dinner by the journalist Michael Wolff, who later said that he had failed to communicate that the gathering would be off the record.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  And that means the fault (if there is one) is Wolff's, not Ben's. I say "if" because if there's one instance in which it seems like a journalist can permissibly break his word of confidentiality (or conveniently neglect to mention to another journalist that those rules apply) it's when a high-profile person stands up and publicly declares his plan for using $1 million in company funds to personally violate yet another journalist who had the temerity to write negative stories about his company. (Maybe if any there are any working journalists reading this thread they can chime in here?) In the meantime, the original point stands: there's no sign that Ben knowingly broke the rules and even if there were, it's insane to say that this violation is remotely comparable to the one he was reporting.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    When the press behaves un-ethically they invite other to turn the same methods on the press. Thats a big problem and this bizzare turn of events seems to illustrate it quite well. The uber stuff is pretty lame, but these guys in hindsight almost seem to prove his point. When your journalists are un-ethical gutter dwellers, they lose any moral high ground. The argument that they should face the same scrutiny as there subjects almost starts to seem reasonable. In this case, it would seem, everything is self-serving to buzz-feed. That creates a credibility issue for them. I could pre-text my way around any confidenctiality restrictions here in 30 seconds--all it takes is the assumption of two (not just one) unethical journalists in collusion. Thats basically what I assumed when reading how one invited the other, wihout disclosure of the ground rules, etc. The problem here, is not that this happened or that that happened. Its that neither you nor I can tell with any certainty. And that's why I think the (The Onion style) cynical cliff-note is actually the true story here. A pox on all their houses.