Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Eggs posted:

As far as statistics go I wonder why a pitcher's wins are always displyed so prominently, seems to be one of the more useless stats in sports.

Because if it was good enough for Cy Young and Kid Nichols and Bob Caruthers and Lady Baldwin1 then by golly it's good enough for pitchers today

fig. 1: lady baldwin

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Hey King Felix too bad you couldn't magic Jose Lopez into something valuable, you could have won the award dedicated to being a good pitcher if you did!!!!

To be honest it's really fitting that the Cy is given to pitchers who are overrated because of wins because so was Cy Young himself

Of course he is also the all time leader in IP with an astounding 7300 (1,300 more than second place Pud Galvin) and with a 136 ERA+ he was still really great, but not best pitcher ever. At least it's not the Lew Burdette Award.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

jeffersonlives posted:

I was driving so I don't have an exact quote, but Mike Francesa thinks the 2010 Yankees probably have the greatest infield of all-time.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHA/1913.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIL/1982.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/1975.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BRO/1951.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/2009.shtml

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

He started off so well and then what the hell happened? Like was he just being sarcastic for the first three answers? Because those seem pretty correct and then he dives into "Rollins is a more valuable player than Utley" and "minor league numbers don't mean poo poo"

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

morestuff posted:

It's a little shrill, but I've always liked this take.

David Mitchell is always a little shrill, though.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Declan MacManus posted:

I dunno how responsible I hold the writer for Dr. V's death since he was doing his due diligence in examining Vanderbilt's credentials (which were entirely fake). He probably didn't need to out her as trans and if that resulted in her committing suicide that's a tragedy but I'm sure he was doing "good journalism" in his mind, I guess? She committed suicide before the article went to print so who knows

What's lovely is that it's treated as a big twist, then immediately uses the wrong pronouns, goes around outing her to clients and co-workers, digging up quotes from people who hated her, and then treats her suicide like it was completely unconnected with him, golly gee gosh this is sad but I guess it just had to happen

I don't think this is even close to 'good journalism,' even in some kind of weird abstract where actions are unconnected to events. It's just spooky boogeyman nonsense that handled a delicate subject incredibly clumsily and took more quotes from people spewing hate speech than anything else

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Also, she wasn't just outed in the piece, he went around outing her to people who knew her personally and professionally, as well as digging up quotes from people she had deliberately cut ties with, then printed their hate verbatim, none of which actually advances the story at all.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

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

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

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.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Dark Weasel posted:

I still can't understand how 13 to 15(!) people read that thing before press without being even slightly concerned about the content of the piece. The overwhelming reactions from people who've read the article that I've seen, both online and in person, have been essentially of visceral, gut-punch, depressing disgust by the end. I'm bewildered that none of their editors evidently had even a little hint of that. I don't even think they can chalk that up to ignorance of the transgender community; that seems to me more like a widespread lapse in straight-up basic morality.

That's probably what bugs me about Simmons' mostly-adequate-but-not-quite-on-the-mark response, beyond my general attitude of "ugh Bill Simmons." "We weren't knowledgeable" doesn't really cover it, despite the fact that they do seem sorry.

Well, Simmons doesn't want to apologize for the writer, I think, and wants to take all the blame himself. Which is admirable from an editorial standpoint, except for the part where Hannan harrassed Vanderbilt and outed her without her consent and that part is entirely on Hannan to apologize for, not Simmons.

As far as to how 13-15 people read the article without realizing something's fucky, I'm going to say a complete and total lack of awareness on how being outed works and its effects on personal and professional lives. Like, if you consider it just a Data Point in this large article, then of course you're not going to be disgusted by the pronoun switching/unnecessary quotes/outing. I bet people would be pretty angry if you told them someone they knew was a liar - and that's what the staff considered it, lying about gender. Instead of, you know, what it actually is.

What this all comes down to is an unhindered eagerness to get to the bottom of the story, without doing the research necessary. Like, key parts of the story were focused on too much, without consideration for the subject involved, and that's lovely and someone - one of 14-16 people should have caught that and been like "dude, okay, stop, we're not going to run this ever, find a different thing to write about" months ago. I hope at the very, very least, Grantland learns from this, and maybe it won't happen at other outlets in the future.

saffi faildotter fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jan 21, 2014

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

the talent deficit posted:

i bet that if caleb hannan had submitted the same piece except the twist was that essay vanderbilt was a lesbian every single one of those readers would have said, 'woah this is hosed up we can't publish this'. i don't know if that's to their credit or shame though

To their shame, really. Like, congrats on being aware of one issue, while being entirely ignorant and actively harmful on another? Also, it definitely wouldn't have come up - it would have been dismissed as irrelevant and possibly harmful to the subject and the article would have been edited to take any references out. Weird how that works with sexuality but not gender.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Denis Lemieux posted:

The time-delay internet-borne outrage over this story feels as synthetic and tired as the much-hinted-at 'sudden reveal' in the piece.

For example:


What a smug and presumptuous accusation. Where is there evidence of harassment by the author?

Probably the part where he outed her without her consent? Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

I seriously cannot harp on that enough, by the by - that's an insanely lovely thing to do, is a likely contributing factor in her suicide, and the author's desire to let literally everyone possible know is like, rule #1 of Things Not To Do when presented with a trans subject of an article. It is every closeted/stealth/whatever trans individual's greatest worry and, big loving surprise, as soon as someone else found out about it they went around outing them to anyone who might give them a quote.

saffi faildotter fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jan 21, 2014

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Denis Lemieux posted:

That view of the world does make it easier to throw around wildly inaccurate accusations.


It's definitely something.

But there's no indication the past family members - many of whom the subject abandoned - or the past coworkers were receiving information so much as providing it.

In fact, the only guy who knew less than the journalist was the one she defrauded of $60,000.

Get hosed. You have no idea what you're talking about, and don't appear to comprehend what people say about the issue, nor do you appear to have a willingness to learn about what's involved.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

morestuff posted:









It's apparently a blind spot that a lot of writers share.

Big fan of the comparison with Te'o. It really makes a lot of sense, if you believe that "misrepresenting your gender" is on the same level as that whole shitstorm.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

sba posted:

I don't disagree with this at all. I'm really trying to feel sympathy for this as a LGBT issue, but I think that the LGBT community is taking it a step far. Any community has it's share of "bad" people, and here's one that did a shitload of lying for personal gain. I'd be interested to know how the piece would have played out if the trans thing was left out, but leaving it out is a cop out and going to far out of the way not to offend when it's pretty relevant to the story here.

It's actually not that relevant, though. You're considering it as another lie in the tapestry or whatever, when like... "I found no record of anyone by that name attending University at that time" is just as good as "Dr. V used to be a dude! Here's quotes by people she cut ties with that are just straight up hate speech!" I'm not gonna say she's a perfect immaculate angel, but there's a very obvious path to take that doesn't involve treating her gender like a plot point in a mystery novel.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

sba posted:

I am guilty of this, yeah. I wish that I could see how people would react if it wasn't an element to the story.

I understand the outrage, and I can sympathize - but I think in the end it's relevant and even if it WAS handled better, it still would have been the lightning rod for overreaction. It's almost like that issue is absolving all the lying and deceit that she was covering up.

There was a rewritten version of the story on the last page that didn't involve bringing her gender into question at all. It wasn't like, stellar aces or anything - just sort of a middling thing, instead of boogeyman clickbait - but it wasn't bad. Including her gender in the list of things that she is covering up is really dishonest and shows a lack of awareness of the issues.

e: it was actually two pages ago, here it is again:

mr. unhsib posted:

Someone re-wrote the article removing all gender references, which I feel is worthwhile: http://si.arrr.net/device/2014/01/18/dr-v-an-edit-after-the-fact/

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

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.

"I found no record of X at that university" is a pretty common thing with academic forgeries, and, to my knowledge, has never involved a witchhunt as to exactly why that was the case. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like 99% of people will just accept that kind of statement, and the remaining 1% will give up well before any sort of name changes come into play.

e: and as the post below reminds me: a) that doesn't make a difference and b) even IF there was someone who somehow managed to connect the dots between "nobody by that name" and "they've changed their name on account of their gender," giving that a platform on Grantland is very different than Joe's Blog.

saffi faildotter fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Jan 21, 2014

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Politicalrancor posted:

Idk, his total lack of apology is pretty lame.

I would like to read a personal account and acknowledgement of how exactly he hosed up, such that future reporters could refer to it and realize they're heading down the same path. I don't know whether he's going to - Simmons's apology for Grantland basically absolved him of all blame, and he's still maintaining Twitter silence (a far cry from "boy the block button is awesome" from immediately before someone told him to stay the gently caress off Twitter) but I'd like something positive to come out of this total sack of poo poo.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Niwrad posted:

Some blog looking for clicks would have followed up on the story and filled in the blanks. You are vastly underestimating what sites will do for traffic these days, especially if they can latch on to a story from a major site like Grantland.


I didn't say it was. I personally don't think the article should have been published at all. I'm just saying that in either form of that article, she gets outed. The re-write that was posted doesn't change what ends up happening.

I would be very interested in seeing a story from a major site about some kind of academic credential fraud gone into further depth on some blog somewhere. Do you have a link to that sort of story?

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

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'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you really think that no sports blog or other entity online would use that article as a springboard to delve deeper into it and uncover something that might bring in clicks? That's sort of their entire existence.

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.

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Denis Lemieux posted:

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.

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

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

saffi faildotter
Mar 2, 2007

Niwrad posted:

Who's creator killed herself before the story was released.
The author outed her before the article was published. Thanks for keeping up.

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply