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

Call Me Jimmy · 05-07-2017 02:32PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

I think such absolutes just don't work in the real world, life is more nuanced than that. Surely it depends on the information and what the consequences of that information being released are?

There are probably philosophical outliers as with any guiding principle but you get his point.

If this truly is about him attacking 'potentially jewish' cnn members or him being a racist, then the law is there for CNN to avail of. If no law is broken, then tough, you don't get to blackmail people just because you have the capability.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2017 02:36PM

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.

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.

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

sbsquarepants · 05-07-2017 02:39PM

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.

I imagine they'll launch a crusade against internet racism now!

This guy being an asshole is not in question, but also not what is important. What is in question is a huge global media outlet taking it upon themselves to put manners on a private citizen - that is overstepping the mark plain and simple, whether that private citizen is an asshole or not doesn't make any difference

Call Me Jimmy · 05-07-2017 02:41PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

It's good to know you're comfortable trying to disparage someone's character and how little thought you give to throwing around serious accusations. If you're not careful with language it becomes meaningless

WinnyThePoo · 05-07-2017 02:42PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

It's good to know you're comfortable trying to disparage someone's character and how little thought you give to throwing around serious accusations. If you're not careful with language it becomes meaningless

Are you talking about the racist meme creator?

kunst nugget · 05-07-2017 02:43PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

That's not what he was getting at with his post whatsoever. Jesus…

Bushmanpm · 05-07-2017 02:43PM

Deliciously ironic that the media are trying to control or curtail someone else's freedom of speech. How would they react if THEIR FOS was being encroached on?
And then, if some don't like others FOS they just rename it 'hate speech'
Hahahahahahahaha
Right about now Orwell must be spinning in his grave!

Celticfire · 05-07-2017 02:46PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I imagine they'll launch a crusade against internet racism now!

http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2017/04/27/lawsuit-claims-cnn-is-rife-with-racism.html

As many as 175 current and former employees of CNN have contacted lawyers about joining a class-action suit that alleges racism at the cable network.

Perhaps they should get their own house in order first.

Call Me Jimmy · 05-07-2017 02:46PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Are you talking about the racist meme creator?

No I'm talking about the poster who was saying scumlord is comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 02:49PM

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Deliciously ironic that the media are trying to control or curtail someone else's freedom of speech. How would they react if THEIR FOS was being encroached on?
And then, if some don't like others FOS they just rename it 'hate speech'
Hahahahahahahaha
Right about now Orwell must be spinning in his grave!

Their freedom of speech is affected as they posters put in the agreement that they don't release his details,it works both ways.

No said CNN made this term. It's all speculation

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 02:51PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Their freedom of speech is affected as they posters put in the agreement that they don't release his details,it works both ways.

No said CNN made this term. It's all speculation

CNN very much framed it as such, and even if they didn't make it, the only correct response to being offered it would have been "no, we're journalists and as such we will not cut deals with a subject of one of our investigations. Whether we publish or not is entirely independent of your actions".

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 02:53PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

No I'm talking about the poster who was saying scumlord is comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

That's a classic logical fallacy. I'm ok with somebody posting online that all Irish people are alcoholics, ergo I am ok with the statement itself.

silverharp · 05-07-2017 02:57PM

apparently its a 15 old kid, going to make it even worse for CNN

Bushmanpm · 05-07-2017 02:59PM

lifeandtimes wrote:

Their freedom of speech is affected as they posters put in the agreement that they don't release his details,it works both ways.

lifeandtimes wrote:

No said CNN made this term. It's all speculation

Sorry, I've read that a few times but can't decipher it. Please try again.

kunst nugget · 05-07-2017 03:03PM

silverharp wrote: »

apparently its a 15 old kid, going to make it even worse for CNN

I'm not entirely sure how that's going to make it worse for CNN… it kind of makes it look like less of a blackmail attempt by them and more of a stern admonishment to a child in that case.

ScumLord · 05-07-2017 03:07PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its good to know you are so comfortable with racism and antisemitism.

Come on now ohnonotgmail, that kind of snipe is below you. As the Americans would say, I'm not defending what this guy said, I'm defending his right to say it without threats of life changing ramifications. I don't even know what racist stuff his said, all I've seen of him he's a silly badly done video.

Some people need to learn that a debate isn't telling the other side to shut up or else.

silverharp · 05-07-2017 03:17PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure how that's going to make it worse for CNN… it kind of makes it look like less of a blackmail attempt by them and more of a stern admonishment to a child in that case.

the follow on would be hate mobs going after the kid, if they had the kid's interests at heart which you are trying to suggest we wouldn't have heard about this.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 03:21PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure how that's going to make it worse for CNN… it kind of makes it look like less of a blackmail attempt by them and more of a stern admonishment to a child in that case.

This is obviously a ridiculous understatement, but even if it wasn't, it isn't a journalist's place to admonish *anybody*. They are there to report the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

kunst nugget · 05-07-2017 03:23PM

silverharp wrote: »

the follow on would be hate mobs going after the kid, if they had the kid's interests at heart which you are trying to suggest we wouldn't have heard about this.

I'd wager it's not really the kid's interest they have at heart but their own and naming and shaming a 15 year old wouldn't be worth the unanimous negative publicity that it would generate.

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 03:25PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is obviously a ridiculous understatement, but even if it wasn't, it isn't a journalist's place to admonish *anybody*. They are there to report the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah But who said they had to report It?

They reached out to the guy,he didn't answer he then released an apology and contacted them and asked them not to publish his details. They're under no obligation to report the guys details if they don't want too.

They just accepted the guys request and didbt publish something they may or may not were going to do. They don't gain more from reporting his details and people resding their article.

The part about they deserve the right to change the agreement if the other party breaks it is standard in mores agreements

kunst nugget · 05-07-2017 03:25PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is obviously a ridiculous understatement, but even if it wasn't, it isn't a journalist's place to admonish *anybody*. They are there to report the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

I must have imagined all those OpEds that I've seen in newspapers and news sites over the years. That's weird…

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 03:26PM

Here's an analogy: a few years ago, a girl was caught on camera rather infamously ranting about how the people talking to her were "plebs" and how her dad worked for a particular accountancy firm. It was subsequently discovered that she was 16.

Would anybody be ok with RTE blackmailing her in a similar fashion, simply because she was spouting hateful speech in the aforementioned video, and threatening to publish her name if she didn't refrain from any future drunken rants?

It's beyond belief that people are defending CNN here. What they have done is unethical on two or three different grounds, not just one.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 03:27PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I must have imagined all those OpEds that I've seen in newspapers and news sites over the years. That's weird…

And have you ever seen an op ed doxxing a private citizen, or threatening to do so, for "bad behaviour" - not illegal behaviour, just distasteful in the eyes of the author?

Ninjavampire · 05-07-2017 03:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is obviously a ridiculous understatement, but even if it wasn't, it isn't a journalist's place to admonish *anybody*. They are there to report the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep saying the same thing but it's objectively not true. Do CNN try to make money by reporting the news? Is that ethical, if perhaps they tell a story in a manner that would be more profitable for their shareholders? It's clearly CNNs objective to not only report the news but also appease their share holders.

Maybe the perfect example of what a journalist is equates to your vision but this is the real world. Things aren't black and white and there is no perfect journalist or organisation.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 03:29PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Yeah But who said they had to report It?

They reached out to the guy,he didn't answer he then released an apology and contacted them and asked them not to publish his details. They're under no obligation to report the guys details if they don't want too.

They just accepted the guys request and didbt publish something they may or may not were going to do. They don't gain more from reporting his details and people resding their article.

The part about they deserve the right to change the agreement if the other party breaks it is standard in mores agreements

They shouldn't have made ANY such agreement with the subject of a potential news story. No journalist ever should. It doesn't matter whose idea the agreement was.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 03:30PM

Ninjavampire wrote: »

You keep saying the same thing but it's objectively not true. Do CNN try to make money by reporting the news? Is that ethical, if perhaps they tell a story in a manner that would be more profitable for their shareholders? It's clearly CNNs objective to not only report the news but also appease their share holders.

Maybe the perfect example of what a journalist is equates to your vision but this is the real world. Things aren't black and white and there is no perfect journalist or organisation.

And that's fine, but it makes them illegitimate tabloid journalism, no better than Fox News or the Daily Fail. Nothing wrong with that, but then they and their defenders need to stop pretending that they are serious broadsheet journalism.

kunst nugget · 05-07-2017 03:31PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And have you ever seen an op ed doxxing a private citizen, or threatening to do so, for "bad behaviour" - not illegal behaviour, just distasteful in the eyes of the author?

I have seen plenty of journalists write commentary pieces on news stories which goes beyond the remit of reporting the news, nothing more, nothing less as you stated in the post that I replied to.

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 03:34PM

Ok, then let me rephrase: it is not for the media to order a private citizen to do something, under threat of consequences if they do not.

lifeandtimes · 05-07-2017 03:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Here's an analogy: a few years ago, a girl was caught on camera rather infamously ranting about how the people talking to her were "plebs" and how her dad worked for a particular accountancy firm. It was subsequently discovered that she was 16.

Would anybody be ok with RTE blackmailing her in a similar fashion, simply because she was spouting hateful speech in the aforementioned video, and threatening to publish her name if she didn't refrain from any future drunken rants?

It's beyond belief that people are defending CNN here. What they have done is unethical on two or three different grounds, not just one.

Blackmail-"the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them"

CNN aren't getting money.

In your analogy the girl would need to ask rte not to publish her details,not them threatening her with it. After that if they agree they can throw in any terms they want.

I.e. it's not blackmail if CNN don't gain financially and the person in this circumstance asked THEM not to publish,they didn't threaten him with it. It was after the fact when they posted their statement saying the can retract the agreement if the other party breaks a term of it

hatrickpatrick · 05-07-2017 03:37PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Blackmail-"the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them"

CNN aren't getting money.

In your analogy the girl would need to ask rte not to publish her details,not them threatening her with it. After that if they agree they can throw in any terms they want.

I.e. it's not blackmail if CNN don't gain financially and the person in this circumstance asked THEM not to publish,they didn't threaten him with it. It was after the fact when they posted their statement saying the can retract the agreement if the other party breaks a term of it

Ok hang on a second. If blackmail is strictly only money related, then what, for instance, is using information to garner preferential treatment by a politician? Not blackmail?

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

Comments