CNN tracks down random reddit meme poster and threatens to release his information

Skylinehead · 05-07-2017 01:27PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Of course those considerations are relevant. I'm very specifically saying that a journalist should never engage in an EXCHANGE with a subject, making publication conditional on the subject's behaviour. That's what I'm saying. No journalist should ever say "whether I publish this information that you want / don't want me to publish, depends whether you do X that I want / don't want you to do.".

Yep I might have taken that slightly off

I was thinking a journalist might have to be coerced into not publishing some truly dangerous information, but then that is covered in the "other considerations".

In this case, I don't understand why they didn't just out him. Would have been far easier and more effective.

sbsquarepants · 05-07-2017 01:29PM

Ninjavampire wrote: »

I dont understand the outrage. This guy made a stupid, non-important meme, until Trump threw him into the spotlight. Trump endorsed this guy and CNN found evidence he was a racist troll. They didnt release his name but could have if they wanted to.

I don't give a toss about the guy who made the meme in the first place - but surely you can see that a "news" organisation using it power and connections to silence a member of the public is just not right?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It makes Trump look wreckless { not hard } and he'll be hesitant to do it again in the future.

Have to side with the above poster about CNN's intentions.

I'm amazed that there are people out there who see this as having anything whatsoever to do with this guy being racist or being an asshole. If it was they'd be pursuing him for those things, not turning a blind eye once he doesn't slag them off.

I'm also amazed that somebody at CNN couldn't foresee this back firing - it is unbelievably stupid what they have done. How could they possibly not envisage the backlash - Muppets!

wes · 05-07-2017 01:31PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

People are saying he post anti-Semitic comments. Is it proper 'I hate all jews'or is it someone against Israeli policy. Genuine Q.

He singled out Jewish CNN reporters in meme.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 01:31PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Where is the law saying the shouldn't?

There isn't one. It's a violation of journalistic ethics, not a violation of the law. As somebody whose family is deeply involved with journalism this is something that I find particularly important for a functioning democracy, and part of journalistic ethics is that you don't predicate publication on whether or not your subject does what they're told.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 01:33PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

People are saying he post anti-Semitic comments. Is it proper 'I hate all jews'or is it someone against Israeli policy. Genuine Q.

He posted a graphic which listed all of the Jewish people who work at high levels in CNN, and presented this as evidence of the "Jews control the media" trope.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 01:35PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yep I might have taken that slightly off

I was thinking a journalist might have to be coerced into not publishing some truly dangerous information, but then that is covered in the "other considerations".

In this case, I don't understand why they didn't just out him. Would have been far easier and more effective.

Exactly. Outing him in and of itself wouldn't have been unethical, it's the fact that they're agreeing not to in exchange for something - in this case a change in behaviour on his part - that makes it unethical and a dangerous precedent.

Ninjavampire · 05-07-2017 01:36PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't give a toss about the guy who made the meme in the first place - but surely you can see that a "news" organisation using it power and connections to silence a member of the public is just not right?

The guy was calling for the mass extermination of muslims so I think they were right to indirectly encourage him to change his ways.

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 01:38PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There isn't one. It's a violation of journalistic ethics, not a violation of the law. As somebody whose family is deeply involved with journalism this is something that I find particularly important for a functioning democracy, and part of journalistic ethics is that you don't predicate publication on whether or not your subject does what they're told.

So it's down to ethics.

Anyway CNN can do as they like,a private citizen didn't want his details released to protect him and his family,CNN did him a favour,I say tjeres ethics in that and all the did after was say they can still exercise their rights

Mr.H · 05-07-2017 01:42PM

lifeandtimes wrote:

If it was illegal the police will investigate it

They can't unless he comes forward therefore identifying himself.

CNN get away with it

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 01:45PM

Mr.H wrote: »

They can't unless he comes forward therefore identifying himself.

CNN get away with it

Couldn't he just get (ironically) a gagging order?

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 01:48PM

Ninjavampire wrote: »

The guy was calling for the mass extermination of muslims so I think they were right to indirectly encourage him to change his ways.

The media should never encourage anyone to change their ways in this manner. It's overstepping the bounds of journalism.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 01:49PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

So it's down to ethics.

Anyway CNN can do as they like,a private citizen didn't want his details released to protect him and his family,CNN did him a favour,I say tjeres ethics in that and all the did after was say they can still exercise their rights

Bolded part is key from my point of view - the media should never do anyone a favour that compromises journalistic integrity, and particularly not in exchange for something.

Christy42 · 05-07-2017 01:49PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He's agreeing not to make any more memes attacking them, how in hell can anyone suggest they're not gaining

Can we just enjoy the absurdity of this statement. I really think cnn can survive someone making memes. I imagine there are thousands from today alone after this broke. Somehow cnn is still there. They got interested in this guy because Trump tweeted it and checked him out. They wanted an interview and it seems he asked for anonymity. They agreed on the basis that he stop posting racist stuff (and cnn stuff). Personally I feel they should have just agreed but all the talk of blackmail or any illegality is very premature outside the realms of speculation.

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 01:52PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Bolded part is key from my point of view - the media should never do anyone a favour that compromises journalistic integrity, and particularly not in exchange for something.

They protected innocent people. Like any court case or even the show cops,names are changed to protect the innocent. Thats what they have done here. His family who are innocent would have been adversly effected by this. As other journalists do they saved them from anything that would happen to them by not publishing his details

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 01:55PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Can we just enjoy the absurdity of this statement. I really think cnn can survive someone making memes. I imagine there are thousands from today alone after this broke. Somehow cnn is still there.

So if they don't want him to stop doing it, why are they saying that he must stop doing it or be punished by them?

They got interested in this guy because Trump tweeted it and checked him out. They wanted an interview and it seems he asked for anonymity. They agreed on the basis that he stop posting racist stuff (and cnn stuff). Personally I feel they should have just agreed but all the talk of blackmail or any illegality is very premature outside the realms of speculation.

Well I'm not talking of illegality myself, merely an ethical violation. They shouldn't have agreed on the basis that he do anything - that is transactional in nature and therefore something I regard as unjournalistic. Publish the information, or don't. Publishing it if the subject doesn't behave as you have instructed him is unethical. It's not a journalist's place to influence behaviour in this manner, end of story.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 01:57PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

They protected innocent people. Like any court case or even the show cops,names are changed to protect the innocent. Thats what they have done here. His family who are innocent would have been adversly effected by this. As other journalists do they saved them from anything that would happen to them by not publishing his details

And yet they say they will publish them if his behaviour does not change. That makes it transactional.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 01:58PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So if they don't want him to stop doing it, why are they saying that he must stop doing it or be punished by them?

Well I'm not talking of illegality myself, merely an ethical violation. They shouldn't have agreed on the basis that he do anything - that is transactional in nature and therefore something I regard as unjournalistic. Publish the information, or don't. Publishing it if the subject doesn't behave as you have instructed him is unethical. It's not a journalist's place to influence behaviour in this manner, end of story.

they aren't saying that as already pointed out to you. he apologised before contacting CNN and they agreed not to publish his name because they felt he was contrite. they reserved the right to withdraw from that agreement if they found he was not acting in good faith.

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 02:00PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet they say they will publish them if his behaviour does not change. That makes it transactional.

And that leaves the ball in his court which he won't break.

Everything at this point is speculative. He contacted them and could have said plesse don't publish my details and I promise not to do it again,they could have said fine and then just made a statement confirming what was agreed. They may not be influencing anything and it was all his idea.

But at the end of the day your argument it abiut ethics based on your family up bringing. CNN chose to agree to these terms

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 02:00PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they aren't saying that as already pointed out to you. he apologised before contacting CNN and they agreed not to publish his name because they felt he was contrite. they reserved the right to withdraw from that agreement if they found he was not acting in good faith.

And again, that makes it a conditional, transactional thing. Which is something I for one believe that a journalist should never, ever engage in.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 02:03PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

And that leaves the ball in his court which he won't break.

Everything at this point is speculative. He contacted them and could have said plesse don't publish my details and I promise not to do it again,they could have said fine and then just made a statement confirming what was agreed. They may not be influencing anything and it was all his idea.

But at the end of the day your argument it abiut ethics based on your family up bringing. CNN chose to agree to these terms

Let me just simplify my view: a journalist should never make publication or lack thereof contingent upon an agreement with a subject, or the behaviour of a subject. The future behaviour of a subject should not be a consideration in deciding whether to publish a story. Regarding this behaviour as acceptable opens the door to corruption.

Supposing the Guardian had treated Edward Snowden's stories like this? "Mr Clapper, we will refrain from telling the public that you've been spying on them as long as you promise to stop doing it"?

Christy42 · 05-07-2017 02:04PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So if they don't want him to stop doing it, why are they saying that he must stop doing it or be punished by them?

Well I'm not talking of illegality myself, merely an ethical violation. They shouldn't have agreed on the basis that he do anything - that is transactional in nature and therefore something I regard as unjournalistic. Publish the information, or don't. Publishing it if the subject doesn't behave as you have instructed him is unethical. It's not a journalist's place to influence behaviour in this manner, end of story.

I am less sure how insistent they were on this point. So far they reserve the right to publish his name and details. I don't think they bothered with much demanding or at least no evidence of it has come to light.

I agree with you that they should have made a decision and gone with it for no agreement.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 02:04PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And again, that makes it a conditional, transactional thing. Which is something I for one believe that a journalist should never, ever engage in.

you have this backwards but as you seem unable to understand this i'll leave you to it.

osarusan · 05-07-2017 02:06PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they aren't saying that as already pointed out to you. he apologised before contacting CNN and they agreed not to publish his name because they felt he was contrite. they reserved the right to withdraw from that agreement if they found he was not acting in good faith.

CNN tied to contact him first by phone and email, without any response from him.

He apologised the next day.

I think it's fairly obvious that his reaction was 'Oh F**k, they found me' and apologised.

Then he contacted them to ask them not to publish his identity.

without knowing the nature of the first contact from CNN and what was said to him, it's difficult to know exactly what happened. We don't know if they instructed him to apologise, offered not to publish if he apologised, or whatever.

Even if it was not something that CNN expressed or implied, there's hardly much doubt that his apology and deletion of his posts was based on anything other than the fear that CNN would publish his identity, though is there?

EDIT: There is a lot we don't know though. For all we know, he has agreed to give them more info about other trolls/network of trolls, and they are looking for bigger fish to fry.

ScumLord · 05-07-2017 02:06PM

I don't see why that meme would attract the attention of CNN. I thought it was funny and could see how both sides could find it funny. I think it's a bit petty for CNN to go after some nobody over a half arsed joke. Whatever their intentions they are essentially blackmailing him into silence now.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 02:09PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see why that meme would attract the attention of CNN. I thought it was funny and could see how both sides could find it funny. I think it's a bit petty for CNN to go after some nobody over a half arsed joke. Whatever their intentions they are essentially blackmailing him into silence now.

they are not going after him because of the trump meme. this has already been explained in the thread.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 02:16PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have this backwards but as you seem unable to understand this i'll leave you to it.

I really don't. CNN reserve the right to publish something if the subject doesn't behave as they want him to. That is unethical regardless of any other factors whatsoever.

silverharp · 05-07-2017 02:22PM

osarusan wrote: »

CNN tied to contact him first by phone and email, without any response from him.

He apologised the next day.

I think it's fairly obvious that his reaction was 'Oh F**k, they found me' and apologised.

Then he contacted them to ask them not to publish his identity.

without knowing the nature of the first contact from CNN and what was said to him, it's difficult to know exactly what happened. We don't know if they instructed him to apologise, offered not to publish if he apologised, or whatever.

Even if it was not something that CNN expressed or implied, there's hardly much doubt that his apology and deletion of his posts was based on anything other than the fear that CNN would publish his identity, though is there?

EDIT: There is a lot we don't know though. For all we know, he has agreed to give them more info about other trolls/network of trolls, and they are looking for bigger fish to fry.

one of the CNN responses was that "he apologised before we talked to him, which is not the same thing at all

ScumLord · 05-07-2017 02:23PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are not going after him because of the trump meme. this has already been explained in the thread.

Him posting racist stuff is just the justification CNN feels they can use to turn this guy into news because they didn't like his meme about them. Would they have gone after him if he hadn't posted something about CNN? No, because they don't really give a flying fig about randomers posting racist stuff on the internet, just like most people don't care.

MSM hates social media and the internet for taking away their power, they've been attacking kids on youtube for a few years now because they are popular. They're not even going after the same audience yet the MSM wants to attack private people, usually really young people for making silly content that becomes popular and MSM can't get a bit of the pie.

This was a petty move by CNN, they may have scared the shyte out of this one guy but they've stirred the pot when it comes to online racism. Threatening to turn the internet mob on someone is pretty bad.

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 02:25PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Him posting racist stuff is just the justification CNN feels they can use to turn this guy into news because they didn't like his meme about them. Would they have gone after him if he hadn't posted something about CNN? No, because they don't really give a flying fig about randomers posting racist stuff on the internet, just like most people don't care.

They investigated him after trump shared the content,he's the one who got the ball rolling and as journalist's they have every right to look into people who's stufd the president is sharing. Just happens the guy attacked CNN

osarusan · 05-07-2017 02:29PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Just happens the guy attacked CNN

You can't really believe that?

That of all the people posting that kind of shyte online, and of the stuff Trump is sharing, the one person they went after 'just happened' to be the guy who did the meme of CNN?

CNN tracks down random reddit meme poster and threatens to release his information

Comments