Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 9:56:08 GMT -5
At worst, what CNN did here was paternalistic.
They reported on the source because what the president chooses to retweeting matters - and especially in light of Russia hacking emails and members of the Trump campaign making use of them -- it is relevant that the president apparently doesn't give a shit about the source.
Otherwise, the gif creater's identity would not be newsworthy. He'd just be another troll on the interwebs.
And as far as it being a "threat" -- the gym can still make and distribute this stuff if he wants. He won't go to jail for it. He'll just have to own it.
Paternalistic, yes. Unethical, no.
The fact that this is red meat for Trump supporters, in context, is just pathetic.
ETA:
Moreover --
Let's say that this guy, after abjectly apologizing to CNN and begging them not to reveal his identity, then proceeds to make more of these gifs -- thus demonstrating that his apology was insincere and manipulative. Do you think CNN has a moral obligation, outside of any express agreement of confidentiality, to just keep mum? Or that they have an ethical obligation to voluntarily contract to never reveal his identity, no matter what? Really?
This is a pretty piss-poor example of blackmail, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 5, 2017 10:35:13 GMT -5
That's fine. Hold them to a higher standard. But CNN still should be held to some standard, no? "Because Trump" isn't a valid justification to play search and destroy with some random nobody on the internet, just because of a nothing gif that apparently some at CNN didn't like. There are a lot of pics and gifs out there that ridicule media outlets and personalities or otherwise make jokes at their expense. And the creators of such are not always trolls who post vile things. That happened to be the case here. But CNN didn't know that when it's people went after the person who made the gif. So is anyone who posts a pic or a gif like this now fair game for media exposure, simply because someone in the media got their feelings hurt? And justifying it by claiming that the gif was somehow instigating violence against reporters? Pathetic. And an abuse of power, imo. I recently watched a documentary about Gawker and Hulk Hogan: Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker and Trials of a Free Press. It was quite interesting. It also went into Sheldon Adelson and his purchase of the LVRJ. And into Trump's war with the press. But it was a deeply flawed effort imo, because it tried very hard to paint Gawker as the poor, put upon victim of Peter Thiel (who, imo, has very good reasons to have it in for Gawker). It presented Thiel, Adelson, and Trump as multiple sides of the same coin: billionaires using their money to silence a free press. The argument was that the press doesn't have the resources to combat these attacks. In the case of Gawker and Hogan, it was Thiel's money that tipped the balance of power. But the documentary fails to note how, without such resources, private citizens who try to sue the press are usually buried by the org they sue, because the org has the superior resources and can--and usually does--draw out the litigation indefinitely.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 5, 2017 10:40:31 GMT -5
CNN didn't start this. Trump did and there's a lot of pearl-clutching going on by those who spend an inordinate amount of time media-bashing and Trump normalizing. I fail to understand why it's so popular here to cast the media in general and CNN in particular as not adhering to journalism standards while Trump skates by blithely ignoring any sort of presidential standard.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 5, 2017 10:42:51 GMT -5
Let's say that this guy, after abjectly apologizing to CNN and begging them not to reveal his identity, then proceeds to make more of these gifs -- thus demonstrating that his apology was insincere and manipulative. Do you think CNN has a moral obligation, outside of any express agreement of confidentiality, to just keep mum? Or that they have an ethical obligation to voluntarily contract to never reveal his identity, no matter what? Really? I think internet gifs, pics, and other sorts of memes are a dime a dozen. I don't think searching out the creators of this gifs in order to punish them is a legitimate exercise of the press at all. They're free to reveal his identity. I'm free to view such an action--like the hunt, itself--as a huge mark against the org in question (in this case CNN) and against those "journalists" behind the action. Maybe CNN can hire some private eyes to spy on these horrible gif-makers to show that they've cheated on their wives! Or--even worse--that they don't recycle!
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jul 5, 2017 13:57:37 GMT -5
The Bill of Rights should have delineated concomitant responsibilities. I think CNN's bald blackmail attempt, while technically legal I assume, is extremely disrespectful of their responsibility toward the First Amendment. They're being crappy citizens, IMO. The issue can easily be judged on its on merits, any consideration of Trump aside.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 14:12:42 GMT -5
Again -- the "blackmail" here is "fine, we'll keep your identity anonymous for now, but reserve the right to change that policy."
And the consequences of them revealing the identity would not be criminal. It would be the embarrassment of having to own his own actions -- and only if he were such a hypocrite as to keep doing them after proclaiming that repudiated them and they "don't represent who he is." Keep doing it, and you'll have to own it.
(By the way, have you seen the guy's other memes? Labeling people with stars of David and the like? Playing to rabid bigots? Google if you haven't.)
Nor can I see, at all, that CNN had a duty to not pursue this story. Actually, I find it relevant that the president gives so little thought to what he retweets.
Sorry, the more I think of it, I actually don't see that CNN did anything wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 5, 2017 15:09:44 GMT -5
Again -- the "blackmail" here is "fine, we'll keep your identity anonymous for now, but reserve the right to change that policy." And the consequences of them revealing the identity would not be criminal. It would be the embarrassment of having to own his own actions -- and only if he were such a hypocrite as to keep doing them after proclaiming that repudiated them and they "don't represent who he is." Keep doing it, and you'll have to own it. (By the way, have you seen the guy's other memes? Labeling people with stars of David and the like? Playing to rabid bigots? Google if you haven't.) Nor can I see, at all, that CNN had a duty to not pursue this story. Actually, I find it relevant that the president gives so little thought to what he retweets. Sorry, the more I think of it, I actually don't see that CNN did anything wrong here. In the overall scheme of things, not all that much, but it's infinitely much more fun to fire shots at CNN for trolling a troll than it is to aim at the troll or Trump for retweeting it. More fun. Not more important.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 5, 2017 15:26:31 GMT -5
If Trump retweeted the Star of David stuff, that would be a whole new level, even for him, imo.
But the gif in question is again simply one with the message "Trump pwns CNN."
I don't have a problem with CNN--or anyone else--responding to Trump's retweeting of this gif, pointing out that Trump is engaging in grade-school antics to say the least (I still don't think it's a smart strategy though, as it's just giving Trump what he wants). But trying to determine who manufactured the gif in order to force an apology from them and/or threaten them with exposure? If that's not doing anything wrong (regardless of legalities), if that's what media outlets should do, then we're all pretty much fucked, imo.
I just can't comprehend the idea that this guy's identity--because he created a harmless gif--is a legitimate public concern. If it is, then what isn't?
Again, Nietzsche. And Pogo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 15:33:34 GMT -5
I haven't commented on this yet, from the OP:
It is not in the least hypocritical because the two situations are not in the least similar.
In the Morning Joe case, you've got a powerful political figure telling the media "lay off negative coverage on me or I will have my buddies at a tabloid smear your (completely unrelated) personal lives". In other words -- "stop doing your jobs and become my lapdogs. If you do, I'll call off my goons at the tabloid."
In the latter, you have an anonymous troll who puts out offensive meme, one of which retweeted by Powerful Political Figure (we'll set aside for now whether those memes could in fact help incite some of Trump's more volatile followers -- I think they could). News media discovers that anonymous troll is the source of the meme and of other offensive memes. Anonymous troll begs news media not to reveal his real name, apologizing profusely, saying he didn't mean it, and promising to never do it again. News media says, "OK, since you apologize and say you won't do it again, and since the big story is Mr. Political Bigwig, we'll respect your request. But we reserve the right to reveal you are the source of the offensive memes if you go back on your apology and continue to engage in creating the memes, which we feel potentially endanger our reporters and other reporters."
Not the same. At all.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 5, 2017 15:50:35 GMT -5
"Offensive" memes? The meme in question is "offensive" now?
Okay, I give up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 15:52:49 GMT -5
of·fen·sive adjective 1. causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry. "the allegations made are deeply offensive to us" synonyms: insulting, insolent, derogatory, disrespectful, hurtful, wounding, abusive; More 2. actively aggressive; attacking. "offensive operations against the insurgents" synonyms: hostile, attacking, aggressive, invading, incursive, combative, belligerent, on the attack "an offensive air strike" ETA: But obnoxious and vulgar suit me just as well, if you prefer. ETA: Other stuff from meme guy: www.newsweek.com/trump-supporting-reddit-user-who-claims-credit-presidents-cnn-wwe-tweet-also-631118 Perhaps you don't find it newsworthy that the same guy tweeting this shit authored the meme Trump retweeted. That is your prerogative. I do find it newsworthy. I'm taking it for granted you find the three quotes above offensive. As for the CNN one, given the metaphorical assaults on the fourth estate by our government and the actual assault of a GOP congressman on a reporter, and given that media figures have been getting death threats from rabid Trumpites ( Rick Wilson, for one -- he's a prominent Republican anti-Trumper), I find the one in question here offensive, too.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 5, 2017 16:49:27 GMT -5
I completely disagree. Trump: "Stop doing X, or I'm going to do Y in retaliation." CNN: "Stop doing X, or we're going to do Y in retaliation." They're both blackmail. They're both strong-arm tactics. I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm just not comfortable with the example that this sets. The "Fourth Wall" should be better than this type of "eye for an eye," tête–à–tête behavior and some people's "ends justify the means" reaction to this is ludicrous and wrong-headed, in my opinion. If you lie with dogs, you get fleas and I feel that CNN's example might lead other media organizations to feel it's okay to lower themselves to this type of shit. What if Breitbart started tracking down anonymous Democrats who posted memes they don't like and then publicly blackmailing them by threatening to dox them if they step out of line? I was afraid that might be what happened but, instead, the troll army has apparently sprung into action and is now doxxing CNN reporters (I can't find the link to the story). They kicked a hornet's nest when they could've just as easily avoided it altogether by either revealing the guy's name to begin with, or not including the part in their story that has been widely interpreted as a veiled threat. Even Vox and other left-leaning media outlets are criticizing CNN for this lapse in ethics: They also brought up the point I raised earlier: The full article is a good read: www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/5/15922214/cnnblackmail-reddit-trump-wrestlingAs I've said before, I think the troll's past behavior is disgusting and people who post that kind of crap are pure garbage. I can find his behavior reprehensible and simultaneously find CNN's actions to be objectionable too. Those two judgments are not mutually exclusive and pointing out the poor behavior of one is not at all an endorsement of the other. My objection to CNN's actions also have nothing to do with Trump's idiotic tweeting behavior, as that is an entirely different topic. Accusations to the contrary are intellectually vapid red herrings. I don't expect more of Trump, because he's already demonstrated that he's both unwilling and incapable of being mature, reasonable, objective, decent, etc. I'd like to expect more from the press, though. One of my degrees is in journalism and I briefly worked for a TV News station at the end of college, until my interests changed after graduation. But, I still have many friends in news (reporters, producers, videographers, etc.) and they work hard to report the news "without fear or favor." Stuff like this gives them all a bad name and invalidates all of their hard work in the eyes of the public (though, admittedly I think most science reporters suck). And, just as bad, it gives the far-right even more ammunition to smear the media and further brainwash Trump's supporters with cries of "Fake news!" Fox News is not reliable at all (though, Shep Smith is sometimes a pearl in an ocean full of shit) and it used to be that when MSNBC was being a bit too lefty, I felt I could switch over to CNN for a bit less biased of a take on things (yes, I know. I'm sure some people will think I'm naive or deluded for thinking that). Now, all I have left is BBC and CBC. We should be able to trust the media and, right now, most people do not and CNN's antics over the past two weeks will only make things worse. The major cable news networks blew it (in my opinion) during the primaries and main election by shifting even further away from real news and instead becoming 24-hour "Look at what Trump's doing now!" clown car shows. CNN was really bad about it and I strongly feel a lot of their decline is due to Jeff Zucker being in charge. When they put the guy responsible for "Fear Factor" in charge of a news channel, I wasn't surprised that he's shifted CNN from "news" to "entertainment." I don't remember CNN being this bad under Walton. I was hoping that this would be a time where the MSM networks would resolve to do better and really get back to the foundations of good, insightful, investigative reporting, because an effective, objective media is often one of the only avenues citizens have for combating government corruption. But, now it seems the partisanship is just making things worse and even though I'm holding out hope that it will still get better, CNN is sucking that hope straight out of me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 16:51:33 GMT -5
What can I say that I haven't said already? I completely disagree. Political figure: "say only nice things about me, journalist, or I'll have my tabloid friends smear your personal life" is not the same as "if you're really sorry about obnoxious act x, and you're really going to stop, we'll honor your request for anonymity."
I'm also not all that sympathetic to trolls, be they on the left or on the right. A troll is a troll. (And fake news is fake news. I'm not a fan of CNN doing that any more than I am of Fox. I'm happy to condemn that -- though they did retract and resign rather than try to sweep it under the rug. This is something else.)
When you post anonymous malicious shit on the internet to stir up trouble, you risk getting caught and exposed.
ETA:
Nor do I see the two situations as having anything like the same implications on our nation.
Politicians twisting arms to prevent journalists from reporting the truth, and instead be lapdogs -- that's bad for democracy. We want the media to criticize and report honestly on our leaders. That is their function. What Trump was trying to stop Joe and Mika from doing was their function as part of the fourth estate.
Journalists reporting the truth, and withholding a not-particularly relevant name -- and only exposing it if someone continues to troll? Yeah, I don't see a compelling reason to protect the anonymity of trolls. I don't see what democracy gains. Even if you consider the trolling to be "criticism," the troll is free to continue to do it. First amendment and such, if he isn't directly inciting violence. But he risks exposure and criticism. As he always did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 17:29:55 GMT -5
There's also the fact that a political figure gains from suppressing negative coverage. Does CNN "gain" particularly if it succeeds in making this troll crawl back under the bridge?
To give an analogy. I do not use my real name on this site. As I have explained elsewhere, it isn't because I say anything I'm ashamed of or anything different from what I say in real life -- it's just that professionally, it's probably better if I'm not all over the web complaining about Trump and sometimes swearing. No biggie. In NYC, it might even gain me some clients. But all in all, I prefer to keep my incognito. For that reason, I've asked that the couple of people who do know my real name not "out" me.
Let's say someone who knew my real name got tired of my modding them all the time and said "either you stop modding me, or I'm going to tell the whole world your real name, attaching snippets of the salty language you use on TCG." They'd be doing that to shut down my legitimate function here -- to mod.
Alternatively, let's say that I was trolling one of you mercilessly all over the interwebz. You came to know my real name. You said to me, "look, I know who you are. Cut out trolling me, or I'll tell people what you're doing." I apologize profusely and swear I will never do it again. You say, "fine, I won't connect what you've done with your real name. But if you do it again, I will."
Are those two situations the same? I say they are not.
ETA:
Or, for that second situation, a more apt comparison might be us getting a troll here. We ban him, and he comes back and trolls under new names and makes a pest of himself. I discover, using my modly admin powers, the real identity of the troll. I tell him "dude, you are so caught." He says "please don't expose me!" I say, "fine. I won't expose you, but if you come back and troll again, I will."
Is that the same as the person trying to prevent me from modding them by exposing my real name against my wishes?
I say no.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 5, 2017 17:48:45 GMT -5
Just to be clear here:
1) a reporter mocking the size of Trump's penis is okay--not offensive--because the media has always done stuff like that 2) staging a play that depicts the current head of state getting stabbed to death is okay--not offensive--because it's Julius fucking Ceasar 3) but a three second gif that shows Trump wrastlin' with a Vince McMahon that has a CNN logo for a head is offensive
Do I have this right? (and again, to be clear, I'm okay with all three of these things; I just don't think the first is smart and I don't think the last--when tweeted by the President--is appropriate, but none are offensive)
I honestly simply cannot believe the defenses and justifications I'm reading for CNN here and elsewhere on this, the attempts to make it perfectly acceptable for a national news organization to go after a random private individual who posted a harmless gif.
None of this has jack to do with Trump, imo. Trump didn't commission the guy to make the vid; Trump didn't ask him if he could use it. It was tasteless, un-presidential and obnoxious of Trump to put it on his twitter feed, no doubt about it imo. But that's all on Trump. Why does it matter who made the gif? Again, these things are a dime a dozen. Now they're a nickel a dozen, given how many new ones have popped up after CNN's little story. How does it help/inform anyone by knowing who made it, if it's just some random person? Why does it matter if the guy is something of a troll? So are quite a few media peeps these days, imo.
|
|