QueenOfThorns
Member
Wow.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Destructoid writer let go over including relevant information in a story?
- Thread starter Goon Boon
- Start date
Wow.
Askherserenity
Member
...And why was it cancelled again? How can anyone think it was ok for her to do that? And just because it didn't go through makes it ok? So attempted murder...
idgaf if you're straight, gay, bi, trans, black, white, purple, green. A shitty person is a shitty person. Actually, just I take that back. She was desperate and wasn't thinking clearly (hopefully). I don't know her so I can't say she's a bad person. I feel for her. I really really do. But what did she think was going to happen?
BronsonLee
Member
And we're done here. This thread was getting too heavy for me, so I'm bowing out before this turns into a big thing.
That makes two.
Ravensmash
Member
I believe that the process to get it on the NHS is fairly long and complex, certainly not a procedure that doctor's take likely at all.
You can't just stroll into a doctors surgery and demand a sex change, and it certainly wouldn't be performed just because someone felt that they were confused.
The Albatross
Member
Most insurance companies cover sexual reassignment surgery and have for some 10 or 20 years.
dragonbane
Member
Bullshit. Allistair is a good man and doesn't deserve this. God help us all if doing your job as a journalists is now a fireable offense...
I'm kind of leaning torwards this, too. It should have come out eventually, somehow. The whole thing lacked tact.
What I'm pissed is at people saying he done nothing wrong like it is so fucking simple. It is not. Read what he said himself. It's no about putting a lid on the truth, it is about being smarter about it, at least more professional.
If you're not stable enough to report about a person who is unstable herself, then it really shouldn't be you doing this reporting.
we know exactly why it was cancelled now, and igg handled it in exactly the right way by saying they determined that fraud was involved and refunded the money. no further explanation was warranted.
it's publicly funded because time has shown it's one of the few things that can be done to help suicidal trans people and prevent them from killing themselves.
Basically,
1) People saying that individuals have no right to privacy where sexual orientation is concerned, and that gender reassignment surgery = "plastic surgery" are insane.
2) People defending the fraud and linking being outed by this guy to an substantive increased risk of being victimised in hate crimes are insane.
Does someone share this middle ground with me? Come at me bros.
1) People saying that individuals have no right to privacy where sexual orientation is concerned, and that gender reassignment surgery = "plastic surgery" are insane.
2) People defending the fraud and linking being outed by this guy to an substantive increased risk of being victimised in hate crimes are insane.
Does someone share this middle ground with me? Come at me bros.
SRS is the last part of a long transition period that is overseen by a doctor and psychiatrist the entire way. It's not something you simply walk in and get done. It takes place after years of passing and making sure this is the right case and you're not making a mistake.
You are correct. It's a costly, expensive, and long process.
That is indeed horrifying, but are they more likely to encounter violence for being who they are compared to other minority groups? I assume it would be hard to track such statistics since it seems like anonymity is very important for them.
well is it absolutely 100% medically necessary for that person to continue living?
im all for a national healthcare service in theory but good god the opportunities for abuse are way too plentiful
where do you draw the line on whats medically an absolute necessity and whats not?
Delusibeta
Banned
Don't insult other country's health services when America's health service remains a large component in the reason why America's still an international laughing stock.
Also inb4 NeoGAFShitPosts and/or ban.
Suicide tends to hamper your ability to continue living.
He wrote something shared via his personal Twitter account which his news organization perceives as harmful to their brand. It did not go through the overseeing and editing process that typically happens with an editor. As I said earlier, they're within their rights to suspend him pending an investigation.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
I'm not going to try and educate you on the subject, but please note that SRS is a pretty heavy psychological matter that isn't to be brushed off as lightly as "plastic surgery."
Besides, not everything covered by health insurance is 100% necessary. Look, just because your left arm isn't entirely necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't still try and cover such an injury.
He did his job, but he also did it fairly poorly. Twitter isn't an acceptable way to handle the matter.
Baleoce
Member
This is very reasonable.
im not saying its an overnight operation like a breast enlargement or something
im just saying... personally i wouldnt donate money to someone for it because i dont agree with the idea... so under a national healthplan a controversial procedure like that would feel like forced donation to me... dont i have a right to no agree where my tax money is going?
where did i insult other country's health services? i said i agree with the idea in theory. but the truth is i know how people really work and how abusive people are of opportunities.
Delusibeta
Banned
I maintain my belief they IGG actually suspected money laundering, and considering that the Indie Stone donated the smart end of $5k in one lump sum into a campaign that had been fairly slow up to that point, I can see why their algorithms triggered.
No, you don't.
the point is that the decision to come out is hers and no one else's. not yours, alistair's, or "society's"
outing someone against their will in a case like this was not only completely unnecessary but tantamount to emotional violence
Remember, this isn't some magical sex change on a whim issue. This is a real diagnosis that psychologists and physicians agree causes extreme stress and depression to the individual affected.
faceless007
Member
"I have independently confirmed that Sagal's fundraiser was based on false pretenses and untrue claims, which is the reason it was cancelled by IndieGoGo. Sagal is now receiving medical attention following her suicide attempt. Due to my personal involvement with the story I am not at liberty to disclose more than that."
That's the way you balance your ethical obligations as a journalist to report a story with your ethical obligations as a person not to unnecessarily compromise someone's privacy and do unwarranted harm to them. Reporting the fraud was valid; outing her was tabloid journalism.
Please don't tell me there was a need, especially now, for this story to come out. The fundraiser was cancelled weeks ago and the money was refunded, it was no longer a matter of anyone's interest why it was done so, certainly not anyone who wasn't a donor in the first place. That part of the story was over. Continuing to report on this story after the fact, unilaterally deciding against both her wishes and the orders of your editor to out her on Twitter by misgendering her without even considering the ramifications to an-already suicidal person is grossly irresponsible. Even real political journalists will sometimes warn a subject ahead of time that a damaging story is going to come out, and they will intentionally sit on a story if they feel it might lead to personal danger for the subject -- and they are public figures whose lives are in the public interest, which Sagal is not.
To wit: I am obviously not defending her lying, or her roping in of well-intentioned people into her scheme with suicide threats. I realize that Sagal put Pinsof into an extraordinarily difficult situation as a person. I don't know exactly how I would have acted in that situation either, and I don't think that he should be fired for this. But he followed up it in just about the worst possible way, because it served nobody's interest to do what he did. Not one person is better off now that she is outed than they were before, and it served absolutely no public or useful good to disclose it after the fact other than to cause even more distress to an already frail person. (One could potentially make an argument that it would have been valid to do while the fundraiser was ongoing. But it wasn't.)
That part of her life is quite simply irrelevant to anyone who isn't personally affiliated with her. Should she have done what she did? No. But that does not justify causing grossly more injurious harm to her under the guise of helping her. If Pinsof was concerned for her well-being, he could have attempted to get her help where she lived, and contact support groups in her area. But he didn't, and it's difficult to believe that he genuinely thought he was outing her for her own benefit, as he claims. A moment's thought should reveal how this could not possibly benefit Sagal in any way.
So the question is, who does benefit from outing her? Absolutely no one.
Edit: The fact that it was widely circulated beforehand that she was trans is irrelevant. Prior to this it was only rumor; Pinsof provided confirmation to the world at large. In doing so, he made himself part of the story as a source, which was not the responsible thing to do as a journalist. He is responsible for the fallout that comes from confirming it, because it is clearly a much more widely circulated story now than it was before.
That's the way you balance your ethical obligations as a journalist to report a story with your ethical obligations as a person not to unnecessarily compromise someone's privacy and do unwarranted harm to them. Reporting the fraud was valid; outing her was tabloid journalism.
Please don't tell me there was a need, especially now, for this story to come out. The fundraiser was cancelled weeks ago and the money was refunded, it was no longer a matter of anyone's interest why it was done so, certainly not anyone who wasn't a donor in the first place. That part of the story was over. Continuing to report on this story after the fact, unilaterally deciding against both her wishes and the orders of your editor to out her on Twitter by misgendering her without even considering the ramifications to an-already suicidal person is grossly irresponsible. Even real political journalists will sometimes warn a subject ahead of time that a damaging story is going to come out, and they will intentionally sit on a story if they feel it might lead to personal danger for the subject -- and they are public figures whose lives are in the public interest, which Sagal is not.
To wit: I am obviously not defending her lying, or her roping in of well-intentioned people into her scheme with suicide threats. I realize that Sagal put Pinsof into an extraordinarily difficult situation as a person. I don't know exactly how I would have acted in that situation either, and I don't think that he should be fired for this. But he followed up it in just about the worst possible way, because it served nobody's interest to do what he did. Not one person is better off now that she is outed than they were before, and it served absolutely no public or useful good to disclose it after the fact other than to cause even more distress to an already frail person. (One could potentially make an argument that it would have been valid to do while the fundraiser was ongoing. But it wasn't.)
That part of her life is quite simply irrelevant to anyone who isn't personally affiliated with her. Should she have done what she did? No. But that does not justify causing grossly more injurious harm to her under the guise of helping her. If Pinsof was concerned for her well-being, he could have attempted to get her help where she lived, and contact support groups in her area. But he didn't, and it's difficult to believe that he genuinely thought he was outing her for her own benefit, as he claims. A moment's thought should reveal how this could not possibly benefit Sagal in any way.
So the question is, who does benefit from outing her? Absolutely no one.
Edit: The fact that it was widely circulated beforehand that she was trans is irrelevant. Prior to this it was only rumor; Pinsof provided confirmation to the world at large. In doing so, he made himself part of the story as a source, which was not the responsible thing to do as a journalist. He is responsible for the fallout that comes from confirming it, because it is clearly a much more widely circulated story now than it was before.
Regardless of my sympathy towards the LGBT community, I don't see why the writer should've left out this detail considering it's at the very core of this story. He did the right thing, and is getting shit on for it. If he just exposed her while doing some random interview about her game or something, that would be totally uncalled for. But that isn't what happened here.
She tried raising money under a fraudulent pretense. When reporting on this, that matters and should be noted. What exactly was Allistair supposed to write? "The money was claimed to be for a life-saving surgery but... uhh.. was actually for this totally other thing. MOVING ON..."
She tried raising money under a fraudulent pretense. When reporting on this, that matters and should be noted. What exactly was Allistair supposed to write? "The money was claimed to be for a life-saving surgery but... uhh.. was actually for this totally other thing. MOVING ON..."
QueenOfThorns
Member
In a lot of cases, yes. Gender dysphoria is a real thing and I'd educate myself on it before saying that it's just something people decide to because they're "confused". It's not something you do lightly. It takes years. If you don't think it's medically necessary, take a look at the suicide rate with it untreated. It's as real a medical condition as depression, and it's covered, so what makes it different and somehow unworthy?
i dont? im not saying i can actually change it. doesnt mean i have to agree with it or not voice my opposition. thats crazy
Ravensmash
Member
Of course it's a forced donation, it's a tax.
You don't have to agree with the idea to understand that medical practitioners have deemed it necessary in severe circumstances.
Thank you.
Except the reasons you stated for your opposition are flawed. So yeah that generally does mean you have to reevaluate your position.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
I feel that it's reasonable to leave it in the hands of educated medical specialists who have devoted their lives to studying the topic. If they say it's necessary, and can argue so to our representatives, it seems fair. It's up to people like you who disagree to argue the contrary, with eloquence and research of your own.
Which is why it's not easy to get an operation like this.
i understand
which is why i hope a universal healthcare system never comes to america
It does not matter that it was not successful, it was still a crime ....... there isn't room for manoeuvre on this point.
Secondly the fraud was committed to try and gain money for SRS, attaching this persons private life to a public crime .......... Chloe is at fault for this and ultimately responsible for her private life becoming a public matter ....... this is fact, not gossip.
The reason for crime warrants explanation and investigation ....... don't tie a private matter to a crime if you don't want investigation and exposure.
KojiKnight
Member
She fired the first bullet by commiting financial harm via fraud... She's not some innocent person who got targeted and outted by someone trying to do her harm. She put herself in a situation to be discovered, and Alistair wasn't even the first person to "out" her! It was on several forums and heavily speculated before hand.
He tweeted what he found from other places and was fired and now risks his whole life being destroyed because he spoke the truth about someone who committed fraud.
That's really selfish you know?
This is irrelevant if Alistair was the first person or not. It doesn't excuse his actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
famousmortimer
Banned
Absolutely. There are many 'defense' and foreign aid expenditures that make me sick to my stomach. Unfortunately for both of us... Complaining will get us nowhere.
This situation sucks. I don't think it's as black and white as the journalist makes it out to be but I hope he gets a fact based investigation and I hope someone gives him a second chance. I'm pretty sure he has learned a lesson through all of this.
Selfish and ignorant.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Nobody's saying you can't say what you're saying. They're just telling you that your understanding of the situation is wrong and based on ignorance.
absolutely none of this justifies his actions
he's been suspended, not fired, for breaches of ethics that would get him drummed out of real journalism immediately
Ravensmash
Member
According to a few posts up above, your private system is already funding SRS.
The Albatross
Member
Just because you appealed to some middle ground on right to privacy. Keep in mind, I don't share any of those other opinions about sexual reorientation surgery, etc. But.. only in so far as we're talking about a right to privacy..
May as well take up the first point. There is no recognition of a "right to privacy" that private citizens are compelled -- by law -- to recognize. The implied, but not explicit, "right to privacy" in the Constitution does not make any law about private citizens, only about the States (and in effect, other institutions regulated by the states, for instance, private health providers, institutions of education, and so on). There simply is no right to privacy over sexual orientation in so far as that right is, in this case, being "violated" by a private individual.
In addition to that, even though a right to privacy protecting individuals from the Government has been implied for some ~50 years of ConLaw, an implicit right to privacy would likely not trump an explicit right to free speech. But, this paragraph is irrelevant because of the first paragraph: When talking about the actions of individual citizens, there is no compulsion to respect a "right to privacy," it only applies to the government (and institutions regulated by the government).
For a concrete example: Let's say that I find your medical records in the trash. As we know, sharing of medical information by your health care provider, educators, employers, and other government institutions is restricted under "HIPAA" -- they are not allowed to share your medical information without your written consent. But, let's say that hypothetically I find your medical records outside and I go to all of your friends and tell them that you have Hepatitis C. While you'd definitely have a bone to pick with me and that'd be a shitty thing for me to do, you are not protected against me by HIPAA, only against your health care organization and/or the government. Private citizens are not compelled by implied privacy laws.
May as well take up the first point. There is no recognition of a "right to privacy" that private citizens are compelled -- by law -- to recognize. The implied, but not explicit, "right to privacy" in the Constitution does not make any law about private citizens, only about the States (and in effect, other institutions regulated by the states, for instance, private health providers, institutions of education, and so on). There simply is no right to privacy over sexual orientation in so far as that right is, in this case, being "violated" by a private individual.
In addition to that, even though a right to privacy protecting individuals from the Government has been implied for some ~50 years of ConLaw, an implicit right to privacy would likely not trump an explicit right to free speech. But, this paragraph is irrelevant because of the first paragraph: When talking about the actions of individual citizens, there is no compulsion to respect a "right to privacy," it only applies to the government (and institutions regulated by the government).
For a concrete example: Let's say that I find your medical records in the trash. As we know, sharing of medical information by your health care provider, educators, employers, and other government institutions is restricted under "HIPAA" -- they are not allowed to share your medical information without your written consent. But, let's say that hypothetically I find your medical records outside and I go to all of your friends and tell them that you have Hepatitis C. While you'd definitely have a bone to pick with me and that'd be a shitty thing for me to do, you are not protected against me by HIPAA, only against your health care organization and/or the government. Private citizens are not compelled by implied privacy laws.
RPG Wizard
Member
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but could he not have stated that she was being fraudulent in what she was appropriating the money for, but to respect her privacy, he would leave it on her to explain what the real purpose was?
I'm all for journalism exposing fraud, but given how much difficulty a trans person has anywhere, outing her, especially in a public forum such as twitter, is not the right way to do so. It feels more like he was getting a personal shot in for being effectively blackmailed than actually being a journalist.
I don't think there was a simple way to go about this, but I do think that Allistair Pinsof acted in bad faith. So did Chloe Sagal.
And as he nuked all of his tweets on the matter, the only way I can find any of the information is in this angry article: http://quinnae.com/2013/05/14/at-the-edge-of-night-who-owns-a-womans-truth/
It's not as simple as a journalist exposing a fraudulent scammer. I can understand the outrage from a lot of GAFfers from this perspective. But it's also about an individual who is in a bad place psychologically being trodden on while she's down, and for that reason, I do think that Allistair Pinsof is out of line, and should have stopped and reconsidered the way he wanted to present his article.
Given that everyone got their refunds from Indiegogo, I think Destructoid is right in giving Pinsof some time off.
I'm all for journalism exposing fraud, but given how much difficulty a trans person has anywhere, outing her, especially in a public forum such as twitter, is not the right way to do so. It feels more like he was getting a personal shot in for being effectively blackmailed than actually being a journalist.
I don't think there was a simple way to go about this, but I do think that Allistair Pinsof acted in bad faith. So did Chloe Sagal.
And as he nuked all of his tweets on the matter, the only way I can find any of the information is in this angry article: http://quinnae.com/2013/05/14/at-the-edge-of-night-who-owns-a-womans-truth/
It's not as simple as a journalist exposing a fraudulent scammer. I can understand the outrage from a lot of GAFfers from this perspective. But it's also about an individual who is in a bad place psychologically being trodden on while she's down, and for that reason, I do think that Allistair Pinsof is out of line, and should have stopped and reconsidered the way he wanted to present his article.
Given that everyone got their refunds from Indiegogo, I think Destructoid is right in giving Pinsof some time off.
It doesn't, actually. Insurance companies won't usually fund anything beyond hormones from my experience. If even that.
Jibbajabbawockky
Member
I'm confused here. What is the narrative of events exactly? Did this guy actually out her? It sounds like people already knew during the IndieGoGo campaign. I guess I'd agree with other people in that if you willfully perpetrate fraud in a public venue like this, then it seems a probable consequence that you'd risk being outed. That doesn't make it right to out someone, but that once you set up a campaign like this under false premises and its exposed as being false, then naturally, people will start digging and they'll get to the truth. Never mind that it seems some people already knew she was trans* during the campaign itself?
I've only read this thread but is this narrative correct?
1.) Indie developer goes to IGG to fund life saving surgery from car accident
2.) IGG shuts down campaign after discovering it is fraudulent
3.) Destructoid author investigates why IGG campaign for developer was shut down
4.) Author learns from developer that campaign was for SRS
5.) Author is told by Destructoid editors not to publish findings of investigation
6.) Author is potentially blackmailed by indie developer to stay quiet
7.) Author stays quiet
8.) Indie developer attempts suicide
9.) People on the outside think indie developer is commiting suicide due to car accident situation
10.) Author gets indie developer to seek help
11.) Author goes public with info from his investigation, going against Destructoid editors' wishes
12.) Author suspended/ blacklisted/ career ruined
I feel like I'm not understanding something here. Apparently the author went against Destructoid editors, so on those grounds they're justified in dealing with him how they please. But if you're going to try and put yourself under the guise of journalism, then let the truth be known. Its unfortunate that this developer had to be outed this way but it seems like that should have been a risk she foresaw when she started up a fraudulent fundraiser in the first place. Even if this one Destructoid author let things slide, I'm sure someone else would have ended up outing her and getting to the truth of the fraud.
I've only read this thread but is this narrative correct?
1.) Indie developer goes to IGG to fund life saving surgery from car accident
2.) IGG shuts down campaign after discovering it is fraudulent
3.) Destructoid author investigates why IGG campaign for developer was shut down
4.) Author learns from developer that campaign was for SRS
5.) Author is told by Destructoid editors not to publish findings of investigation
6.) Author is potentially blackmailed by indie developer to stay quiet
7.) Author stays quiet
8.) Indie developer attempts suicide
9.) People on the outside think indie developer is commiting suicide due to car accident situation
10.) Author gets indie developer to seek help
11.) Author goes public with info from his investigation, going against Destructoid editors' wishes
12.) Author suspended/ blacklisted/ career ruined
I feel like I'm not understanding something here. Apparently the author went against Destructoid editors, so on those grounds they're justified in dealing with him how they please. But if you're going to try and put yourself under the guise of journalism, then let the truth be known. Its unfortunate that this developer had to be outed this way but it seems like that should have been a risk she foresaw when she started up a fraudulent fundraiser in the first place. Even if this one Destructoid author let things slide, I'm sure someone else would have ended up outing her and getting to the truth of the fraud.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
Eh... beyond the moral, psychological and ideological argument of a sex change treatment... a good implemented universal health care system will be benefical to your country.
no one is saying this guy should be prosecuted, so basically this whole post is arguing with a straw man
journalism has a code of ethics that is supposed to be followed that not only has nothing to do with the law, but in many countries with oppressive governments the law is rightfully flouted
Which is why maybe he shouldn't have further stepped into what was already a cesspool of ignorance. I don't even want to get into this whole "journalism, moral imperative, reporting the 'truth' " which is just fanciful, Sorkin-esque nonsense that usually arises from people who have never actually worked a day in the industry. It's more complicated.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked