Journalist reports facts, exposes fraud, gets shitcanned.
Journalism is dead.
If only things were as simple as you believe.
Journalist reports facts, exposes fraud, gets shitcanned.
Journalism is dead.
If only things were as simple as you believe.
Do you have any proof that it didn't?they can (and did) say that fraud had occurred and the funds were not going to be used for the specified cause
that's enough justification to cancel the campaign. if people were going to blame IGG for anything after that, outing her does nothing to stop them
In this case they are, actually.
In this case they are, actually.
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.
Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.
Exactly this.Maybe if she didn't want her personal information spread about she shouldn't have been scamming people out of money.
She has zero sympathy from me. People have a right to know where their money was going and what it was going to be used for.
are you asking me to prove a negativeDo you have any proof that it didn't?
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.
Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that.
Just as simple as jumping in and not reading anything anyone has said, right?
No, really. They're not. He didn't report facts. He went and made a shitstorm out of it on twitter after being told not to by his bosses.
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.
Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.
They also hadn't tried to blackmail anyone into keeping quiet.
I don't think that would make much of a difference. She's still suicidal and will continue to be. You'd essentially be waiting until she was mentally past all of her gender issues, which could very possibly be never. I don't think this situation would have been any less impactful/damaging two months from now then it was when it happened.
I'm asking you to show me that people are still threatening IGGare you asking me to prove a negative
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.
Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.
I personally think having someone threaten to commit suicide on you unless you do/dont do something is one of the most despicable things another human being can do, and it probably REALLY fucked Allistair up in the process. Employer just ganking you after that kinda thing just makes them look like shitheels, especially with the sort of things theyve defended Sterling about over and over again.
Two possibilities. She was probably banking on people forgiving her because of the nature of the surgery, or maybe once the process was complete she wouldn't give a shit what people thought.After thinking this over I was wondering how Chloe was going to play this if everything went through as 'planned'.
Would she keep the facade and show pics of metal in a couple of blog posts?
Or would she out herself?
People were going to find out eventually if they would just follow the money. Wouldn't the situation and backlash be pretty much the same then, only delayed?
I find her despicable for trying to scam people who are willing to do good on other people, on the other hand it seems she needs some serious psychiatric guidance and I hope things will work out that way.
As for the Destructoid whistleblower, it's a lesson that whistleblowers will always get the short end of the stick.
It's still pretty fucking selfish. The public should absolutely share the burden when it concerns issues of mental health. There are so many people out there who don't get the help they need because of lack of understanding and available treatment.is it?
If i were to be saying it should be outlawed, wouldnt THAT be selfish? but not wanting to be part of funding something i dont agree with is selfish? im not calling for SRS to be illegal
I personally think having someone threaten to commit suicide on you unless you do/dont do something is one of the most despicable things another human being can do, and it probably REALLY fucked Allistair up in the process. Employer just ganking you after that kinda thing just makes them look like shitheels, especially with the sort of things theyve defended Sterling about over and over again.
Nah man. when someone attempts to take their own life you speak out and speak loudly.
I would have done the same thing in his shoes.
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat.
This is total bullshit. She willingly gave a reporter self incriminating evidence and thenAlso, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to
his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop
the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should
not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.
Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew
personally under the guise of helping her.
That is not responsible journalism.
third: she was an emotionally unstable person acting irrationally and shouldn't have been put under even further pressure and scrutiny by having her gender identity posted on twitter against her willTwo possibilities. She was probably banking on people forgiving her because of the nature of the surgery, or maybe once the process was complete she wouldn't give a shit what people thought.
third: she was an emotionally unstable person acting irrationally and shouldn't have been put under even further pressure and scrutiny by having her gender identity posted on twitter against her will
There is no way in hell this company wasn't pressured in to doing this.
third: she was an emotionally unstable person acting irrationally and shouldn't have been put under even further pressure and scrutiny by having her gender identity posted on twitter against her will
Self-harm is the worst sort of blackmail. Additionally, the blackmail proved unnecessary when her psychological distress caused her to perform the self-harm anyway. I can understand Pinsof having strong emotions due to having gotten a personal attachment to the matter as well as being personally blackmailed, but again, there were better ways to disclose the information.
I think my biggest problem with your previous examples is that you're attempting to generalize how tactful use of personal details should be applied to news stories, when it really isn't something that can have a broad brush applied to it.
I disagree entirely. The circumstances are that she is in a terrible place right now, and Pinsof's method of revealing this information is just worsening the situation. I think it would have been less impactful/damaging two months from now, in part because she wouldn't be in one of the most emotionally fragile positions possible.
As faceless007 posted, there was a good way of disseminating the information while still respecting the situation at hand.
third: she was an emotionally unstable person acting irrationally and shouldn't have been put under even further pressure and scrutiny by having her gender identity posted on twitter against her will
That is also a pretty good point. Let's not pretend that Destructoid is a bastion of intengrity and moral high ground, even if they did the right thing in this case.
regardless of the morality of what he did, he did it after his boss explicitly ordered him not to and he indicated that he wouldn'tI don't think it's okay to out someone. But he made a bad decision while attempting to do something good, and he did it as an individual, not as a Destructoid writer. If he loses his job over this, then that's fucking bullshit. I'd rather someone make a mistake while attempting to help another person, than just ignoring I and walking away. Also, I feel that the possibility of being outed was part of the risk Chloe took when attempting fraud. Note, I don't think she deserved it, only that it the truth being revealed was a potential consequence of trying to gain public funding with a story that's a lie.
follow the timeline, this came weeks after the igg campaign was cancelled and refunded for fraudDon't put criminals under scrutiny. They might already be under pressure.
Don't report their names or crimes to the public. They might not want the details of their crimes to be made public.
On the bright side this guy is free to get a real job.
I agree that she is emotionally unstable as evidenced by her actions.
However, if she had gone through with the surgery, wouldn't she be in effect outing herself?
On the bright side this guy is free to get a real job.
I don't think they were specifically pressured, but want to avoid looking bad given the situation.
I agree that she is emotionally unstable as evidenced by her actions.
However, if she had gone through with the surgery, wouldn't she be in effect outing herself?
regardless of the morality of what he did, he did it after his boss explicitly ordered him not to and he indicated that he wouldn't
so no matter what his job is forfeit if destructoid chooses
She was outed long before this guy posted on twitter.
So, if I swindle....say, some old people out of 30 grand, because I tell them I'm going to die without the money...and someone finds out and tells them...and then I try to kill myself because I'm outed....
That's their fault?
Well, I'm gonna go rob someone, and tell them if they tell anyone, I'll kill myself. Then they'll be the one who looks bad in the press, and lose their jobs!
Right?
Oh, only works if I'm transgender or gay? Fuck.
Two possibilities. She was probably banking on people forgiving her because of the nature of the surgery, or maybe once the process was complete she wouldn't give a shit what people thought.
It's still pretty fucking selfish. The public should absolutely share the burden when it concerns issues of mental health. There are so many people out there who don't get the help they need because of lack of understanding and available treatment.
What is it exactly you don't agree with? The surgery itself or the underlying disorder?
Mexican journalists (and others in too many other regions to count) today, as a another example.
Not so sure about that. If anything it would likely cause a relapse which in turn could be even worse. At least in this case she was already getting medical attention and they could address it immediately.
Still screams coverup.
to be completely honest? I have no problem with the surgery itself, its more or less that the underlying disorder is really warranting of that change. that the desire to be another gender is nothing more than just that, the desire
i tried telling my feelings on the subject WITHOUT being offensive