|
Niwrad posted:It's not common to come across those stories in sports. George O'Leary is the first to come to mind, but that was at a time before sports blogs were really a thing. David Chao's story was expanded on by Deadspin a few years back, and they went into it even further in April. I think, largely speaking, getting hits for content is as easy as putting up slideshows of The Ten Most Overpaid Players In Baseball, and that doing actual investigative work is beyond their capabilities. Deadspin expanding upon their own story is one thing, a small blog expanding upon Deadspin's story for them (and getting attention for it) is quite another.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
leokitty posted:He outed her to some people from her contemporary life. He states that he did. Yes, as I said, the author outed her to the man she defrauded. As I said above, I don't think the piece was that great. I didn't like a lot of the lines - the chill up the spine especially. When I first read the ending, I thought Grantland shouldn't have published it. After the subject's suicide, who cares about golf clubs. But I disagree that the investigative journalist is a villain or a bigot. The accusations that he harassed her or caused her suicide by outing her are dishonest. The notion that revealing past gender identity always requires consent is unrealistic. And the crowd that screams "gently caress off, you don't know what you're talking about" may be good at putting pressure on Grantland over Twitter, but I don't think that behavior serves the cause for equality or for humane treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Denis Lemieux posted:The notion that revealing past gender identity always requires consent is unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Denis Lemieux posted:Yes, as I said, the author outed her to the man she defrauded. Grantland (and you) actually don't know what you're talking about, is the problem here. You're treating gender identity as the equivalent of lying about your SAT scores or something, when: it's actually not. People don't get murdered over lying about their credentials. If coworkers find out you lied about your credentials, they probably get upset for a bit and then move on because hey - the product works. (Or it doesn't - the article totally dropped that storyline in favor of clickbait.) Maybe they ask you about it later and that's the end of it, instead of suddenly raising questions about whether you're allowed to use the women's bathrooms, treating you as a freak, and (in extreme cases, though not as extreme as they sound) murdering you for 'lying' about your gender. I feel perfectly comfortable saying gently caress off, you don't know what you're talking about, because you don't. e: almost forgot! Pretty neat trick to suggesting the crowd that "screams" that Grantland should gently caress off and doesn't know what they're talking about is wrong, when Grantland admitted they shouldn't have run the article and that they didn't know what they were talking about. Pretty, pretty neat. saffi faildotter fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
MourningView posted:For a story about a goofy putter? No. Who's creator killed herself before the story was released. Male. Bi. Unix. posted:I think, largely speaking, getting hits for content is as easy as putting up slideshows of The Ten Most Overpaid Players In Baseball, and that doing actual investigative work is beyond their capabilities. Deadspin expanding upon their own story is one thing, a small blog expanding upon Deadspin's story for them (and getting attention for it) is quite another. I think you're vastly underestimating that form of media. A woman can accuse an athlete of sexual assault and some blog will have unearthed every social media account she has along with her Yearbook photos from High School within the hour. You're talking Bleacher Report, I'm talking Deadspin, Terez Owens, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Who's creator killed herself before the story was released. Niwrad posted:I think you're vastly underestimating that form of media. A woman can accuse an athlete of sexual assault and some blog will have unearthed every social media account she has along with her Yearbook photos from High School within the hour. You're talking Bleacher Report, I'm talking Deadspin, Terez Owens, etc. Searching Facebook is one thing (the identities of sexual assault victims are often very poorly hidden), getting academic records and government forms is a totally different thing. That 'thing' is the exclusive domain of places like Deadspin, who I would loving hope have someone on staff saying "hey guys, maybe we shouldn't out LGBT people without their permission." e: also Deadspin being a trashy cesspool does not excuse Grantland of being one as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Male. Bi. Unix. posted:(Or it doesn't - the article totally dropped that storyline in favor of clickbait.) I agree with you on everything else but I'm not sure that clickbait was purely Grantland's motivation here? I think it's at least possible they thought it was legitimately a good, serious piece. I mean, they don't need to have had mercenary motivations to have hosed up majorly. Maybe I'm being too generous here to Simmons/Grantland, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Male. Bi. Unix. posted:The author outed her before the article was published. Thanks for keeping up. It was in response to a comment that the article was about a dumb putter. It was not about a dumb putter and someone else in sports media would have realized that when they found out she had killed herself. Someone would have looked into the story further either in an attempt to out her or to show malice on the part of Grantland. Male. Bi. Unix. posted:Searching Facebook is one thing (the identities of sexual assault victims are often very poorly hidden), getting academic records and government forms is a totally different thing. That 'thing' is the exclusive domain of places like Deadspin, who I would loving hope have someone on staff saying "hey guys, maybe we shouldn't out LGBT people without their permission." Gawker spent all last week outing a Congressman. They've insinuated Kerry Rhodes is gay for the last couple years despite his denial. Even made a joke a few weeks back about Aaron Rodgers being gay. They don't give a poo poo about outing people. And no, it's not the exclusive domain of Deadspin. Plenty of blogs do investigating on their own. There are a lot of tools available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
enuma elish posted:I agree with you on everything else but I'm not sure that clickbait was purely Grantland's motivation here? I think it's at least possible they thought it was legitimately a good, serious piece. I mean, they don't need to have had mercenary motivations to have hosed up majorly. there's a lot of problems at grantland but clickbait definitely isn't one of them. the blog content is largely inconsequential and trivial (although they've given voice to some pretty idiosyncratic writers mostly for the good) but the features almost without exception aim for critical acclaim over popular acclaim. i am 100% sure simmons and the rest of the editorial team thought they were putting out a really insightful look into a world no one knew existed
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Male. Bi. Unix. posted:Grantland (and you) actually don't know what you're talking about, is the problem here. You're treating gender identity as the equivalent of lying about your SAT scores or something, when: it's actually not. People don't get murdered over lying about their credentials. If coworkers find out you lied about your credentials, they probably get upset for a bit and then move on because hey - the product works. i think if essay vanderbilt had been a woman who changed her identity for her own protection (from an abusive family or something equally sympathetic) there wouldn't be any sort of question that the article was flat out wrong for publicizing her previous identity. that so many people are unable to see that the identity change wasn't any kind of fraud or deception speaks poorly
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
How does Grantland even make money? I barely see any ads on their site at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Okay, I finally got to sit down and read Dr. V's Magical Putter. There is an awesome story that is not fully told in this piece, controversy or no. The writing style is fine, a sense of drama conveyed in some parts and skillful reporting in other areas but instead it is a first-person narrative piece that would fall somewhere on the lower half of the Best Pieces Ever Published on Grantland scale. For a reporter who has done work for Bloomberg Businessweek, there is a pronounced lack of attention devoted toward Yar's business side. What Caleb Hannan should have aimed for was a comparator to this piece (or, for you business journalism types, this piece) but he falls short. By entertainment value, the piece gets a little lazy in golf philosophy but does a fine job once we get to the meat of the piece. It also does one very nice big-picture deal well: it at least tries to answer the question of, Why does this putter exist in the marketplace? And the natural follow-up, Who would be driven to make such a thing? Sadly, Hannan cannot answer this question, not least because his subject was uncooperative. I find myself agreeing with what appears to be the majority in that the way Essay Anne Vanderbilt's transgenderism was introduced was shameless, juvenile, and -- to be quite honest -- way beneath the standards that Grantland has set. Start off with that sound-the-alarm-bells quote from the Gilbert city manager (side note: has there ever been a city manager who has NOT been an incredibly huge piece of poo poo? That guy comes off as one), then go to Hannan's personal expression of (seeming) disbelief and him outing Dr. V to each of his sources, and the article takes a turn away from being a good and compelling story. Perhaps my thoughts are colored from already knowing how this discussion plays out, but reading over those first few lines suggesting transgenderism produces the effect of a mental record scratch. The biggest sin Caleb Hannan commits is outing Dr. V to people like Gary McCord. That serves no journalistic purpose and -- in so many ways -- poisons the story he was trying to write. But I find that there's a compelling case for disclosing Dr. V's transgenderism: it's obviously a major part of her life and a major biographical point in what turned out to be (in part) her life story. Josh Levin over at Slate (yeah, I know) accused Hannan of conflating transgenderism with being a fraud. It's hard not to disagree, and Hannan is a good enough writer to make that difference known. Bill Simmons said that this article passed through five people: Rafe Bartholomew, Dan Fierman, Simmons, Sean Fennessey and Megan Creydt. Creydt, as the copy editor, is responsible for the nitty-gritty; Bartholomew and Fennessey, as editor and deputy editor, are supposedly in charge of reporting, story structure and major components. I presume that Fierman and Simmons have their eyes on the macro: making sure the piece conforms to Grantland's high standard of intersecting reporting with commentary and sporting gravitas/relevance. I'd be most curious to hear from Bartholomew and Fennessey about the piece. It lacks a certain amount of integrity and, worse, a fair amount of vision. Simmons obviously does not possess the acuity with which to properly edit this piece, and Fierman's role in all this is a bit questionable. I don't doubt that Hannan spent eight months working on the story. I'd ask him if he couldn't have spent his time better. A note about transgenderism: I would like to think that, in conjunction with the experiences of gay and lesbian individuals, we can discuss individual human beings without them being forced to represent the whole subgroup. tl;dr: Read this piece and this piece and thank me later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:i think if essay vanderbilt had been a woman who changed her identity for her own protection (from an abusive family or something equally sympathetic) there wouldn't be any sort of question that the article was flat out wrong for publicizing her previous identity. that so many people are unable to see that the identity change wasn't any kind of fraud or deception speaks poorly I think it's a matter of people being unaware of trans issues in general along with a perceived deification of Dr. V by the LGBT community (perceived) that's making people double down on the whole "she's lying" thing. It's a new thing for a lot of people to take in, particularly sportswriters, who are not necessarily on the bleeding edge of progressive politics. That doesn't excuse their actions but it's probably not worth unilaterally condemning them based on their ignorance If nothing else maybe some people will be educated about some lesser publicized LGBT issues
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:That is still indirectly outing her. Grantland is a big enough outlet that someone else would pick up where the author left off and fill-in the blanks. This really isn't relevant to what Grandland is doing. If they report that there's no record at the University of anyone with that name, they're well within the bounds of the story to do so. Whether or not that causes a third party to fish deeper really shouldn't be Grantland's concern nor should it serve as any type of justification for them using the information. If a blog discovers she was born with male parts and reports it, then so be it. That's a problem for the blog whenever this occurs. Most likely though, nobody is going to view that statement as anything beyond "woman lied about college" and the vast vast majority wouldn't even know the story existed because this thing really isn't picking up traction without the controversial ending. Also, perhaps this is just me, but I feel like a lot of people out there who are qualified to be leading the discussion to educate others regarding these issues are kind of just looking for scalps right now and I really don't get it. We need more Kharl's and less angry bloggers. Grantland hosed up. Hannan hosed up. Let's put the focus on people not loving this up in the future instead of trying to find out how much blame we can heap upon people for a situation that really can't be fixed at this point in any way other than preventing future errors. This isn't the type of thing that should be expunged from history, no matter how disturbing it is. It should be stuck in textbooks and taught to prevent it from ever happening again. Truther Vandross fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:there's a lot of problems at grantland but clickbait definitely isn't one of them. the blog content is largely inconsequential and trivial (although they've given voice to some pretty idiosyncratic writers mostly for the good) but the features almost without exception aim for critical acclaim over popular acclaim. i am 100% sure simmons and the rest of the editorial team thought they were putting out a really insightful look into a world no one knew existed Clickbait may not be the best word, but from Simmons' account he clearly says that they had rejected the piece with most of the same information pre-suicide. And that after the suicide the author focused more on it, and Simmons the explicitly asked the author to tone down any empathy or contrition about what happened. They even contacted lawyers prior to publishing the piece, which makes it clear that they wanted to be as edgy as possible. They wanted the whiff of "did they cause the suicide?" attached to it. They probably didn't expect the magnitude of the backlash, and when it became clear that the only places coming to their defense were right wing political sites, they realized that this might hurt the brand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
At first I liked Simmons's apology. Sure it was framed through his narcissistic approach to column writing but thats's how he's always expressed himself so I cant really fault him for that. After reading more of this thread, the deadspin piece and just talking to some people who are more insightful on the subject though I think his apology revealed a crucial misunderstanding which points out how such an institutional failure could occur. Basically Simmons, and his editors, treats gender identification (both presently and historically) like any other journalistic fact, and therefore believes upon sound reporting, can be presented to the public without any moral issues. Journalist searches for fact-editor confirms fact-lawyers check if fact can get them sued-website prints fact. Of course the terrible error here is that a person's gender history/identity is not just an unproblematic fact on par with where the person went to school or worked. Instead, it's an exceptionally personal and private piece of information that can greatly alter a person's physical and mental wellbeing. The idea that the author (and the editors) treated this piece of information as one of the many clues that revealed a larger deception/hoax is grossly offensive. It implies that a person living 'in the closet' or 'stealth' or whatever we wanna call it is doing it because they have something to hide, ignoring all the other reasons why a person doesn't feel comfortable/safe/etc running around telling everyone they used to identify differently. It doesn't surprise me this happened in sports. Other areas of journalism frequently dont print facts that could put people at risk. It doesn't matter how important some information is to your story, you dont print stuff that could cause your subject harm. The idea that this author thought that outing a trans woman would not cause immediate mental and possibly physical harm is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Clickbait may not be the best word, but from Simmons' account he clearly says that they had rejected the piece with most of the same information pre-suicide. And that after the suicide the author focused more on it, and Simmons the explicitly asked the author to tone down any empathy or contrition about what happened. They even contacted lawyers prior to publishing the piece, which makes it clear that they wanted to be as edgy as possible. They wanted the whiff of "did they cause the suicide?" attached to it. They probably didn't expect the magnitude of the backlash, and when it became clear that the only places coming to their defense were right wing political sites, they realized that this might hurt the brand. They told him to continue reporting the story initially because it had no end. That's what editors do. Knowing the "what" without the "how" or "why" isn't a final product. They obviously weren't looking for something to happen that was this terrible. They were just looking for a more definitive conclusion and it's kind of unfair to hold that against them in retrospect simply because the definitive conclusion turned out to be so godawful. As for the empathy, they're right in that the author's personal feelings have no place in the piece. They're wrong in the sense that they didn't care about that when it added dramatic effect, such as with the "chill down my spine" line. They executed their beliefs poorly but it's Hannan's job to report, not editorialize, and what he feels about it personally should be saved for some kind of after-the-fact column or blog post from him, not the actual longform piece itself. He very clearly states they approached the lawyers because they had absolutely no idea what the legal ramifications could be and that they were openly worried about the suicide aspect of it. To act like they went to the lawyers seeking the comfort of knowing they could be as controversial as possible is pretty blatantly false. If you want to assume what Simmons wrote in the letter is false, then I suppose you're free to do that, but the statement itself didn't actually convey that at all. BWV posted:At first I liked Simmons's apology. Sure it was framed through his narcissistic approach to column writing but thats's how he's always expressed himself so I cant really fault him for that. After reading more of this thread, the deadspin piece and just talking to some people who are more insightful on the subject though I think his apology revealed a crucial misunderstanding which points out how such an institutional failure could occur. I don't disagree with you but what is Simmons supposed to do? He's not making excuses, he's telling us what happened from their perspective. Gross ignorance is what happened. He's not trying to excuse it, he's telling us what actually happened. Yes, they should've known better than to do this, but they didn't. Whether they should or shouldn't have, they didn't and no amount of words in a Simmons apology crafted to suit detractors is going to do that, so just be honest, and he is. I guarantee there's not a person in that newsroom that doesn't understand how wrong they were right now. I don't understand this "narcissistic approach" angle that a lot of people seem to be taking to the apology. He's the Editor-In-Chief. He's at the top of the food chain. He's the one putting the systems in place that are supposed to catch these things. He failed in judgement. He failed in building a staff with diversity enough to consider this to be a problem in advance. He's the one who built a young team by design, with which is going to come less experience. He's talking about himself because the ball is supposed to stop with him and it didn't. That's not narcissism, that's fact. And people blaming him for apologizing to Hannan don't understand that as much as Hannan has a responsibility to know these things before they get to the editor, the editorial staff has a responsibility to Hannan to know better in the event he doesn't. They failed Hannan in that regard, even if Hannan failed them first. Truther Vandross fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:
His apology basically expresses how ignorant and insensitive they were. Thats fine. What I find problematic is basically in this sentence: quote:But even now, it’s hard for me to accept that Dr. V’s transgender status wasn’t part of this story. This is something he needs to accept. It needs to be very easy for him to accept this. It needs to be super clear to him that a person changing how they (publicly) identify is not a necessary part of a story about a hoax. BWV fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
BWV posted:His apology basically expresses how ignorant and insensitive they were. Thats fine. What I find problematic is basically in this sentence: That's totally fair and I think it's something that has to come with a greater understanding of the issue as a whole, which I'm sure he'll develop now. There's a lot here that goes against journalistic instinct. Just look at how many people were praising the story, then came out after thinking harder and changed their stance. For a lot of these people it's instinct that if you uncover something that's being hidden, the vast majority of the time you roll with it. Having this happen in the midst of uncovering a wealth of info that WAS appropriate to expose only exacerbated the poor judgement IMO. Maybe he doesn't fully get it yet, but he's at least admitting as much and is creating dialogue with people like Christina Kharl in an attempt to understand it better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Here's a thought experiment for all of you (men) who just don't seem to understand why outing Dr. Vanderbilt was a bad idea: if Dr. V had been assigned female at birth and had transitioned to male at some point in her past - would her outing have occurred? Yes, but all this poo poo that's come out after wouldn't be the focus, because there is a culture in America (and let's be real, everywhere) that says that trans women are liars and are trying to 'trick' a cis guy into being 'gay' by being attracted to them. That's why her trans status became almost the focus of the article, because a cis white guy 'caught' a transwoman who was deeply, deeply stealth and felt it was his moral obligation to tell men from her past and present so that they wouldn't get 'tricked'. The lgbt community is not overreacting to this at all, because this is poo poo that's dealt with on a daily basis. Dr. V's gender was never part of the con and it's really dumb that people can't see that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:He very clearly states they approached the lawyers because they had absolutely no idea what the legal ramifications could be and that they were openly worried about the suicide aspect of it. To act like they went to the lawyers seeking the comfort of knowing they could be as controversial as possible is pretty blatantly false. If you want to assume what Simmons wrote in the letter is false, then I suppose you're free to do that, but the statement itself didn't actually convey that at all. There's an old saying along the same lines of "Dead men tell no tales" that "Dead men don't file libel suits." If anything, that makes me believe that they might not have outed Dr. V if she hadn't have killed herself. It also makes me wonder if they were debating whether or not she could have been considered a public figure, which would make the barrier for showing harm significantly higher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Can't wait to see where this one falls in Simmons' inevitable "Journalism Eff-Ups Pantheon" article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Can't wait to see where this one falls in Simmons' inevitable "Journalism Eff-Ups Pantheon" article. Wouldn't it be the "Mount Rushmore of Journalism eff ups?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Can't wait to see where this one falls in Simmons' inevitable "Journalism Eff-Ups Pantheon" article. or Simmons steps down to save Grantland and starts his own blog, leading off with a Ewing Theory post about Grantland
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Can't wait to see where this one falls in Simmons' inevitable "Journalism Eff-Ups Pantheon" article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
So did the putter even work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:or Simmons steps down to save Grantland and starts his own blog, leading off with a Ewing Theory post about Grantland A prime candidate for the Ewing Theory: Yar Golf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Parlett316 posted:So did the putter even work? The original article claimed that people who used really liked it, but also mentions that there is a psychological aspect that makes it hard to say that the putter is actually better. That is, it is unclear that they like it because it is actually good, or because all the claims regarding the "Science" behind it convince people to think it is. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Parlett316 posted:So did the putter even work? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPyb1B7P-9A
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
FMguru posted:In a week or two he'll write a post-mortem noting all the similarities between this situation and the 1980s comedy "Just One Of The Guys" Ladybugs, so he can make the suicide references with Jonathan Brandis joepinetree posted:The original article claimed that people who used really liked it, but also mentions that there is a psychological aspect that makes it hard to say that the putter is actually better. That is, it is unclear that they like it because it is actually good, or because all the claims regarding the "Science" behind it convince people to think it is. Yeah, that's generally where all these magical sports marvels end, outside of like belly putters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Not to be that guy, but it's very possible Simmons has high functioning autism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Grantland mailbag where Bill honestly responds to the emails written in by angry transgender readers, but publishes each email with a name and hometown attached, followed by another column where he wonders why people are complaining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Personally, I'm looking forward to the Grantland mailbag where Bill honestly responds to the emails written in by angry transgender readers, but publishes each email with a name and hometown attached, followed by another column where he wonders why people are complaining. Yep, these are my readers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Personally, I'm looking forward to the Grantland mailbag where Bill honestly responds to the emails written in by angry transgender readers, but publishes each email with a name and hometown attached, followed by another column where he wonders why people are complaining. This made me laugh so hard I think I hurt my ribs
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Not to be that guy, but it's very possible Simmons has high functioning autism. I feel like it'd be more "that guy" to speculate he doesn't
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
ESPN's ombudsman finally weighed in on the Hannan story today. http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/305/dr-v-story-understandable-inexcusable
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
trem_two posted:ESPN's ombudsman finally weighed in on the Hannan story today. quote:At the least, he should have reached out to the LGBT colleagues at ESPN, if not to outside individuals and groups, for greater understanding of a community of which he apparently knew nothing. That’s not even empathy, that’s craft. That's really well put.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
quote:The story itself is structurally clumsy and flabbily edited. Yet Grantland’s gatekeepers – including Bill Simmons, the site’s founder and editor-in-chief, and more than a dozen editors in all -- waved the story on through seven months of meetings and drafts and tweaks. They may have been blinded by the idea that had captivated them in the first place, the self-absorbed young man looking for his quick fix, a metaphor for the times and perhaps Grantland’s demographic. But that was not the story any more. gahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh man that's good. that's really good. And probably 100% accurate. I'm loving this ombudsman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
The takeaway from the reactions to the article, even by some people in this thread, is that many people don't realize that being transgender is a legitimate thing. Dr. V was a transgendered person who happened to be a con artist, yet the two are listed side by side as though one supports the other. This isn't some Mrs. Doubtfire poo poo, it's not like you identify by a different gender in order to trick people or hide your past. The casual assumption that Dr. V's identity was part of the con is pretty horrifying, as is the notion that it's okay for people to make that ignorant and bigoted mistake, because how would they know better? Simmons' apology is pretty bad in its own right, because as another poster said, it's not "we should have known better", it's "we didn't talk to anyone from the transgender community, who could have told us we were making a mistake". Golly if only we'd consulted with someone who knows about those weird trans folks, we would've learned that exposing extremely sensitive personal information to the entire world is frowned upon! It's a shame none of us have that obscure knowledge about these strange people. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
GQ ran a profile on Jay Glazer. He's...quite the character. http://www.gq.com/entertainment/sports/201402/jay-glazer-nfl-fox-sports quote:How'd you get the Spygate video? quote:At the Pro Bowl in 2007, Glazer got into a shouting match with Peyton Manning after Manning made a lighthearted wisecrack to Glazer about New York Giants legend and ABC-talk-show co-host Michael Strahan's divorce. (Glazer and Strahan are best friends.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 17:17
|
|
