|
Simmons' piece about the editorial team's thought process (or lack thereof) is up now. e: Now that I'm working my way through the piece I'm not sure Simmons completely gets it. But here's a quote: quote:We made one massive mistake. I have thought about it for nearly three solid days, and I’ve run out of ways to kick myself about it. How did it never occur to any of us? How? How could we ALL blow it? Pat Clements fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jan 20, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
I think Grantland is confronting this with a lot of maturity and sense. Which is good. They're definitely taking this seriously. Which obviously should be a given, but the state of sports journalism investigative or otherwise is a wasteland so this is refreshing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
soggybagel posted:I think Grantland is confronting this with a lot of maturity and sense. Which is good. They're definitely taking this seriously. Which obviously should be a given, but the state of sports journalism investigative or otherwise is a wasteland so this is refreshing. quote:He struggled with the question of whether or not she’d actually designed a great putter; if you’re a golfer, that might have been what you wanted to know. It certainly would have been the extent of what you needed to know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
It would probably be better to put the Christina Kahrl piece above the Simmons thing on the front page, because it's both better writing and better at capturing the spirit of what went wrong, but it's cool that they went beyond just Simmons saying "We hosed up, sorry" e;fb on the Kahrl thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
That actually seems like a reasonable, honestly apologetic response. Maybe it's the magic of lowered expectations from Simmons but I'm pleasantly surprised by the amount of thought put into what they did wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:e: Now that I'm working my way through the piece I'm not sure Simmons completely gets it. But here's a quote: I think Simmons gets what he missed but if he got the original issues the piece never would have ran in that form to begin with. As with everyone else that's chimed in so far, I'm impressed with his thoughtfulness and willingness to admit culpability, granting that it won't change anything that happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Simmons piece is close, but it still misses the mark.quote:But even now, it’s hard for me to accept that Dr. V’s transgender status wasn’t part of this story. Caleb couldn’t find out anything about her pre-2001 background for a very specific reason. Let’s say we omitted that reason or wrote around it, then that reason emerged after we posted the piece. What then? The issue is that this statement is still treating transgender as a story, rather than just being what it is -- a transgender person who is engaged in the same acts as other people are. To be more clear, the story focuses on being transgender to explain her fake credentials, as if she's pulling a long con or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
St1cky posted:Yes, and I'm still waiting on the check The police and the feds would have done nothing because it is very unlikely that she committed a crime. Her investors could have sued her for misrepresenting her past, and probably would have gotten some money from it (though my reading of their reactions leads me to suspect that they maybe were complicit in it). In most states lying about degrees and past work experience to private parties is not a crime, and in the ones where it is a crime, it will generally be very specific and restricted to things like licensing or professions that deal with kids. If you don't trust me, go read up about George O'Leary, who claimed to have masters degrees he didn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_O%27Leary There was also a dean at MIT who also made up degrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilee_Jones Neither were ever charged with any crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:58
|
|
. I actually know someone that scammed his own in-laws, children, and complete strangers by stealing their identity. He did some absolutely insane stuff to control and manipulate people, and a few of his "stories" involved made up stuff involving me, hence why I'm not exactly sympathetic towards con artists. He finally got caught but he still denies he's responsible. The reporter should have immediately gone to the police or feds to let them know that she was lying about having worked on a top secret project and defrauding investors in the company. That might have saved her from taking her own life.
|
It's weird to see any journalist issue an actual honest to goodness dang rear end apology even if it doesn't fully understand the underlying issue. I've read too many "sorry you were offended" 'apologies' this year and I was expecting to see that yet again. At least there's a willingness to learn (and an admittance of forgetting things they already had learned).
The 7th Guest fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
By the way, if you were upset by the sincerity and levelheadedness of the Grantland response, Chris Jones's Twitter feed is full of whining about how LGBT people aren't doing enough to make him feel like an ally, and how all their silly names are too confusing to keep up with
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Yeah they still hosed up pretty badly, but the apology was handled much better than I would have expected so that's good to see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:Simmons piece is close, but it still misses the mark. i think that while he still doesn't understand that issue he at least admits that he doesn't understand it and that someone who does understand should have been consulted on the editorial side also i'm surprised that 12-15 grantland employees read it and didn't think it was problematic. emily yoshida, wesley morris, molly lambert and jay caspian kang have all written really thoughtful pieces about comparable situations. you'd think one of them would have been included at least
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:It's weird to see any journalist issue an actual honest to goodness dang rear end apology even if it doesn't fully understand the underlying issue. I've read too many "sorry you were offended" 'apologies' this year and I was expecting to see that yet again. At least there's a willingness to learn (and an admittance of forgetting things they already had learned).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:i think that while he still doesn't understand that issue he at least admits that he doesn't understand it and that someone who does understand should have been consulted on the editorial side Kang doesn't work for them anymore, Morris and Lambert aren't editors, and Yoshida is involved primarily with the entertainment stuff. I would guess they didn't even see it before it ran.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Kang is a contributor and recently (pretty sure anyways) stepped away more from Grantland and I think is doing more freelance stuff. I know he was recently working on a New Yorker item or two. Really like his writing. I feel like people who may have been more in tuned like Yoshida, Morris and so on weren't part of that editorial process because they're quite busy with their own things that largely cover culture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:Simmons piece is close, but it still misses the mark. Here's the thing, as Simmons did bring up: the core of the story was about someone selling a product under grandiose and false credentials. If Hannan had investigated the story, and it was just some guy posing as a highly accomplished scientist who really was just some auto mechanic, nothing comes of it. However, the story started with something pretty remarkable - a female MIT aeronautical physicist (who designed the stealth bomber!) that invented a revolutionary putter in her spare time. The gender of the inventor is intertwined with the elaborate hoax that the company told. Unfortunately, the process of unraveling that story took Hannan down a path that went way beyond 'the inventor is not really an MIT engineer'. The obvious thing to do was to mention certain things discreetly, such as 'I could not find any record of Essay Anne Vanderbilt attending MIT' or something like that. Then, the situation goes from 'this woman is transgender' to 'this inventor isn't really an accomplished engineer'. Instead, the author focuses on the uniqueness of the gender aspect of the story instead of the overall fraud, leading to the backlash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Here's the thing, as Simmons did bring up: the core of the story was about someone selling a product under grandiose and false credentials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
I feel like Simmons missed on 3 things 1. That being her trans was part of the story 2. Using "Dr.V" so frequently instead of using her full name 3. Putting himself entirely in front of Hannan, despite Hannan's misstep prior to the editorial process. Just because Grantland maintains that he wasn't actively badgering Vanderbilt, to me, outing her to business colleagues constitutes badgering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:I hope this is just a phrasing issue on your part. A woman changing her name to suit her self-identification is in no way "intertwined with the elaborate hoax". If someone changes their name, outside of anything regarding gender identity, that does tie into the overall story. Carefully saying that there's no record of this person graduating from a university or no record of this person holding certain job does no harm to the overall story, as the O'Leary example and others show. Then, the story turns into what I guess is the original intent, a supposedly space age putter that might just be a placebo. Instead, once the whole gender thing is discovered, that becomes the focus of the story, which is where everything went wrong. If the story focused on the putter, and how the inventor isn't exactly who they say they are (in non-specific ways), this story is just another golf story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Simmons' piece was much better than I expected. I sort of expected him to double down like he did with the Ali mess. Still, the pattern of rejecting the article until it became what it was, their consultations with lawyers, and their awareness that people could have blamed them for the suicide seems to indicate that they knew full well that they would be controversial, only perhaps not realizing the strength of the backlash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Simmons seems pretty upfront about the fact that he can't entirely wrap his head around LGBT issues. I mean, I'll be completely honest and say if I don't know what the proper language is when addressing someone who is transition, post, or whatever. I'm confused about the wording and how to be appropriate. I am not condoning what already happened but speaking from the viewpoint of a person who I think is pretty open about these things I'm somewhat wary of saying the wrong thing and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Grantland Editor Bill Simmons read a story and then told a writer that he's not happy with the amount of reporting before sitting behind his computer, cracking his knuckles, and banging out a column about whether Tom Brady is more like Dylan or Brandon before coming to the conclusion after 2,000 words that he's like Brandylan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
soggybagel posted:Simmons seems pretty upfront about the fact that he can't entirely wrap his head around LGBT issues. I mean, I'll be completely honest and say if I don't know what the proper language is when addressing someone who is transition, post, or whatever. I'm confused about the wording and how to be appropriate. I am not condoning what already happened but speaking from the viewpoint of a person who I think is pretty open about these things I'm somewhat wary of saying the wrong thing and so on. A bunch of people on Twitter are annoyed Simmons wrote at all. I don't really agree with that - he's the Editor-in-Chief of the site and therefore ultimately responsible for its content. Whether he should have that job based on his writing ability, attitude, and overall alignment with what Grantland is trying to be is a different issue entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:A bunch of people on Twitter are annoyed Simmons wrote at all. I don't really agree with that - he's the Editor-in-Chief of the site and therefore ultimately responsible for its content. Whether he should have that job based on his writing ability, attitude, and overall alignment with what Grantland is trying to be is a different issue entirely. If Simmons doesn't write, Twitter complains that he's dodging the issue. Kind of a zero-win game for him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
R.D. Mangles posted:Grantland Editor Bill Simmons read a story and then told a writer that he's not happy with the amount of reporting before sitting behind his computer, cracking his knuckles, and banging out a column about whether Tom Brady is more like Dylan or Brandon before coming to the conclusion after 2,000 words that he's like Brandylan. The Prisoner posted:A bunch of people on Twitter are annoyed Simmons wrote at all. I don't really agree with that - he's the Editor-in-Chief of the site and therefore ultimately responsible for its content. Whether he should have that job based on his writing ability, attitude, and overall alignment with what Grantland is trying to be is a different issue entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
soggybagel posted:Simmons seems pretty upfront about the fact that he can't entirely wrap his head around LGBT issues. I mean, I'll be completely honest and say if I don't know what the proper language is when addressing someone who is transition, post, or whatever. I'm confused about the wording and how to be appropriate. I am not condoning what already happened but speaking from the viewpoint of a person who I think is pretty open about these things I'm somewhat wary of saying the wrong thing and so on. Here's how to handle trans pronouns in one easy step: 1. whatever their preferred form of address is It's just that simple! Also, "transition & post" aren't really different things. Like, there's not a magic wand that somebody waves and now your genitals are inverted. Basically, whatever the individual prefers, use that, even when referring to before they began transitioning. GLAAD's reference goes into slightly more detail (specifically not referring to people as A Transgendered or whatever) but it's honestly pretty easy. E: oh, and while the average person might not know this stuff, it's sort of a journalist's job to do research on subjects and issues that arise in the course of discussing their subjects. So, yeah, kind of a huge deal that nobody bothered with that. saffi faildotter fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
My point was I don't have the GLAAD reference guide memorized so I was admitting it can seem confusing. And if I've never addressed them before I will not know definitively how they prefer to be addressed. I also mentioned that I am not okay with what they did so after the fact apologizing doesn't fix that, but merely that I can also empathize with some confusion...but it doesn't make it okay.
soggybagel fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
soggybagel posted:My point was I don't have the GLAAD reference guide memorized so I was admitting it can seem confusing. And if I've never addressed them before I will not know definitively how they prefer to be addressed. I also mentioned that I am not okay with what they did so after the fact apologizing doesn't fix that, but merely that I can also empathize with some confusion...but it doesn't make it okay. I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here. You don't know what every individual's preferred pronouns are, sure, but (placing yourself in the shoes of Caleb Hannan, as your hypothetical example seems to be?) you would know the preferred pronouns of the subject of the piece, and (as a reporter) would have the duty to at least look at the GLAAD reference guide to see whether you hosed up somewhere. This is still the case if you're instead the editor of the piece, or basically anyone involved in its creation. This isn't about your personal duty as a bystander to educate yourself on LGBT issues (although I maintain that it's not difficult: gendered pronouns are what they ask for, if they haven't told you go by their presentation, and the pronouns don't change throughout discussions of their life), this is about the duties of reporters. Unsurprisingly, the bar's a little higher in terms of knowing this kind of thing if your words are going to be public record. I can't really empathize with the editorial staff, really, because they had a duty to get this stuff right and they totally failed it. And Hannan's reporting went above and beyond 'failing it,' which Simmons only lightly touched on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
soggybagel posted:And if I've never addressed them before I will not know definitively how they prefer to be addressed. e: Although, if we can be really real for real here, I'm sure many trans people have told reporters how they'd like to be addressed only to see the wrong pronouns show up in the article the next day. It happens way too often for that not to be going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I sort of expected him to double down like he did with the Ali mess. Remind me of what the story was here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:Remind me of what the story was here? He compared Tiger coming back from cheating on his wife to Ali returning to boxing after four years from being banned from the sport for refusing to enter the draft over his religious convictions. When called on it, he then doubled down by saying that since young people were against Vietnam that Ali didn't face 10% of the criticism Tiger did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Simmons' apology was about as good as one could expect from him, which is both a compliment and an indictment of Bill Simmons. I do think that the piece exposes (more) how the idea of transgender people somehow being duplicitous or fraudulent is deeply rooted in "mainstream" culture. Glad there's some discussion around that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Kalli posted:He compared Tiger coming back from cheating on his wife to Ali returning to boxing after four years from being banned from the sport for refusing to enter the draft over his religious convictions. Holy... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:If Simmons doesn't write, Twitter complains that he's dodging the issue. Kind of a zero-win game for him. The game he started playing was calling out a trans woman. Simmons' entire brand is the selfish sports fanboy and this apology reflects that. In the majority of it, he's still trying to defend the thought processes that led to publishing it, even going so far as to say "Hey, people liked it at first! We weren't the only ones that grossly misunderstood these concepts!" It'd be a lot better had he just taken that out, but then Bill Simmons wouldn't be Bill Simmons if he didn't make it about himself. This is why I was saying on twitter it was a bad idea for him to write the apology, but there's no one else that really could. That said, even in his childish understanding of things, Simmons' apology has some value, which is more than I can say about his endless catalog of mindless blather. Why we're even talking about this when Christina Kahrl's piece knocked it out of the park is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
So is the writer ever going to say anything? I'm pleasantly surprised by Simmons' response, but have nothing to add other than echo that e doesn't fully get lgbt issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
joshtothemaxx posted:So is the writer ever going to say anything? I'm pleasantly surprised by Simmons' response, but have nothing to add other than echo that e doesn't fully get lgbt issues. The dude was shaken up by it. I don't think there's anything of value he can say, he clearly just didn't know what he was doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
The broken bones posted:The dude was shaken up by it. I don't think there's anything of value he can say, he clearly just didn't know what he was doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:I mean, "I'm sorry and I hosed up" is of some value. The merit of releasing such a statement right now is questionable, though. I'm guessing they're probably waiting for a time when it's not met with 90% of the responses being some variation of "go kill yourself"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Additionally, dude's gotten pretty hosed up from thinking he indirectly killing someone and receiving death threats for it. We should probably think about his mental health right now, even if he didn't return the favor to Dr. V.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:I'm guessing they're probably waiting for a time when it's not met with 90% of the responses being some variation of "go kill yourself"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:58
|
|