Support NeoGAF

[Brakke]

Asshole was never anonymous. He was pseudonymous at most, going to T_D to claim credit for the thing and all. But he was also going around posting personal information on that same account.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Sure and Trump wasn't telling Comey he had to drop the investigation, just saying that he hoped to see him let it go. A perfectly normal thing for someone to say when they hope the best for a friend. Not a threat at all.

He publicly apologized and then nuked his account before the CNN story ever went up. Before he'd even spoken to them formally, even.

Seems like he was so ashamed of his actions the mere possibly of exposure made him look for a clean slate, and CNN said... we're glad this had a happy ending.

 

[L Thammy]

If you think I'm some ... "both sides" asshole please feel free to consult my post history.

Sure and Trump wasn't telling Comey he had to drop the investigation, just saying that he hoped to see him let it go. A perfectly normal thing for someone to say when they hope the best for a friend. Not a threat at all.

hm

 

[Gattsu25]

My point was that he doesn't seem to have broken the law by making a wrestling gif. Sorry if you missed that.

I definitely value investigative journalism and the ways it has contributed to aiding law enforcement at important times in history. What I disagree with is the notion that some people want this one racist asshole to be outed by a media corporation as a sort of preventative measure against other people doing it in the future.

I don't think that sort of public shaming should be the media's place.

Except..the media company didn't expose him. The only things we know is that he's a veteran, and parent, is in his 40s, and lives in Tennessee. That leaves a few thousand potential people which is a pretty damned wide net to cast.

Regarding the threat that CNN didn't make: http://gizmodo.com/how-cnn-made-its-own-reporting-sound-like-blackmail-1796656983

In their attempt to cover themselves against this exact type of claim, some exec stupidly inserted a legalese sentence that says that CNN had no agreement to withhold his name but were doing it anyway.

According to those people, the passage was drafted and proposed by Richard ”Rick" Davis, a 37-year veteran of CNN who is the network's Executive Vice President of News Standards and Practices. It was added at or very near to the final stage of editing—long after Kaczynski had concluded his reporting.

Davis's proposed wording was not inserted by edict, nor did it fall outside CNN's normal editorial process, said the people familiar with Davis's involvement. Kaczynski's article was seen by a large number of editors at the network, and it went through all of the established procedures prior to publication.


...


Ultimately, CNN found no cooperation between HanAssholeSolo and Scavino. The fact that the Trump administration had plucked this particular user out of obscurity, without his permission, made the decision not to name him a simple one, these people said.

But readers took the passage about the decision to mean that CNN had only granted HanAssholeSolo anonymity because of the apology. Even while CNN was startled by the reaction, some employees privately agreed that Davis's language, about ”CNN reserv[ing] the right" to name HanAssholeSolo, read as threatening. At the same time, according to the sources, CNN's executive leadership resisted calls to remove the passage or clarify its meaning. Their reasoning: Any edits or changes to the article itself would suggest CNN had done something wrong, which would only embolden its army of enemies, many of whom believe the network is hopelessly biased against Trump.

Instead, the network issued a statement on July 5 that said, in part, ”Any assertion that the network blackmailed [HanAssholeSolo] or coerced him is false." That echoed Kaczynski's tweets from the night of July 4, in which he said that HanAssholeSolo had assured him, in a phone call placed after Kaczynski's article was published, that he ”was not threatened in anyway." But CNN still didn't back down from the original language.

This reaction frustrated most of the sources familiar with the editorial process. They pointed out that many of the CNN's leaders aren't regular users of social media, where much of the backlash fomented and where Kaczynski has received near-constant harassment. Davis, for example, does not appear to have a Twitter account.

Kaczynski and his colleagues now find themselves in the position of trying to defend their work without defending the apparently threatening passage. And the fact that CNN has adopted a bunker mentality against pro-Trump critics suggests that the passage is here to stay. At this point, altering or removing the passage would amount to second-guessing CNN's leadership. After all, the text employs an institutional voice—”CNN reserves the right"—in which only a handful of executives, including Davis, are allowed to write.

Another such executive is Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN. The people familiar with the editorial process gave varying accounts of how closely Zucker was involved in Kaczynski's article prior to publication, but otherwise confirmed that he was aware that the article was in the pipeline, and familiar with its contents. Zucker did not respond to a request for comment, and did not directly address the controversy in a Wednesday interview with the New York Times.

CNN's handling of the story has led to predictable consequences for Kaczynski, who continues to face threats and harassment directed at him and his family.

You really should just read the article already.

 

[Kettch]

Sure and Trump wasn't telling Comey he had to drop the investigation, just saying that he hoped to see him let it go. A perfectly normal thing for someone to say when they hope the best for a friend. Not a threat at all.

Alright, you clearly aren't arguing in good faith, so that'll be all the responses I have for you.

 

[MrGerbils]

Doing shitty things on the internet does not give you a right to anonymity. People reported on for doing shitty things is not unlawful and is likely a public good if it encourages others to avoid said behavior. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequence. It's possible to report terrible behavior in an unbiased way that is in no way a call to arms. If someone attacks this terrible person, it's on the stupid person who decided to take matters into their own hands and will likely be punished.

The problem is that everyone has a problem with something. I want to feel comfortable saying things on GAF like "fuck Obama's drone strikes" and "Bush is a war criminal who should be in prison" without fear of losing my job, even though simple things like that are probably worthy of a company firing me over were it to become publicly tied to their public image.

And I'm not saying it's a slippery slope. I'm saying it's all fucked, and I don't think it's the media's place to inspire mob justice to police these things.

 

[Mr. X]

maybe not posting racist shit is an easier way to make sure your life isn't ruined................................................................................................................nah.

Ruining life for minorities is a political opinion, don't ruin life for this specific individual spreading it.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Except..the media company didn't expose him. The only things we know is that he's a veteran, and parent, is in his 40s, and lives in Tennessee. That leaves a few thousand potential people which is a pretty damned wide net to cast.

Regarding the threat that CNN didn't make: http://gizmodo.com/how-cnn-made-its-own-reporting-sound-like-blackmail-1796656983

In their attempt to cover themselves against this exact type of claim, some exec stupidly inserted a legalese sentence that says that CNN had no agreement to withhold his name but were doing it anyway.



You really should just read the article already.

The racist dude is a veteran? hmm. I was less concerned when I figured he wouldn't have any affect on minority lives, but now I dunno

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Asshole was never anonymous. He was pseudonymous at most, going to T_D to claim credit for the thing and all. But he was also going around posting personal information on that same account.

People still haven't learned that saying things on the internet is like shouting in the town square.

 

[MrGerbils]

This is such a dumb false equivalency, I'm speechless.

They're both threats pretending to not be threats. Just one is against someone you don't like so you've found a way not to care.

 

[Gattsu25]

The racist dude is a veteran? hmm. I was less concerned when I figured he wouldn't have any affect on minority lives, but now I dunno

In tangentially related (hopeful that it's tangentially and not directly related) conversation, have you seen this documentary from VICE?

How the KKK Preys on American Veterans: https://vimeo.com/166152932

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

In (hopefully) tangentially related conversation, have you seen this documentary from VICE?

How the KKK Preys on American Veterans: https://vimeo.com/166152932

Thanks, will check it out!

 

[sir_kevith]

The problem is that everyone has a problem with something. I want to feel comfortable saying things on GAF like "fuck Obama's drone strikes" and "Bush is a war criminal who should be in prison" without fear of losing my job, even though simple things like that are probably worthy of a company firing me over were it to become publicly tied to their public image.

And I'm not saying it's a slippery slope. I'm saying it's all fucked, and I don't think it's the media's place to inspire mob justice to police these things.

He made a bunch of racist posts and it turns out he wasn't anonymous. That's not CNNs fault. If your company asks that you don't make political posts and you do anyways assuming they won't find out, then that's your ass if they do.

 

[Copper]

I too am getting so sick and tired of multimedia conglomerate CNN constantly making huge investigative news stories(more like witch hunts) about anonymous internet people on social media whose "opinions" disparage them or offend them and revealing their information in attempts to have them publicly shamed. Enough is enough.

Gotta report on something. It's not like there anything else important going on in the world right now.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I too am getting so sick and tired of multimedia conglomerate CNN constantly making huge investigative news stories(more like witch hunts) about anonymous internet people on social media whose "opinions" disparage them or offend them and revealing their information in attempts to have them publicly shamed. Enough is enough.

Assuming you're not being sarcastic... what witch hunt

 

[MrGerbils]

I too am getting so sick and tired of multimedia conglomerate CNN constantly making huge investigative news stories(more like witch hunts) about anonymous internet people on social media whose "opinions" disparage them or offend them and revealing their information in attempts to have them publicly shamed. Enough is enough.

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

The public is severely misinformed about the problems with health care in this country and it's surely in no small part because of the coverage (and subsequent debate) that dumb shit like this gets.

 

[sir_kevith]

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

The public is severely misinformed about the problems with health care in this country and it's surely in no small part because of the coverage (and subsequent debate) that dumb shit like this gets.

Yup, Trump shouldn't repost shit that racist trolls made.

 

[Brakke]

Assuming you're not being sarcastic... what witch hunt

The way Trump infects language with his transparently pathetic branding fancies is... distressing.

 

[Gattsu25]

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

The public is severely misinformed about the problems with health care in this country and it's surely in no small part because of the coverage (and subsequent debate) that dumb shit like this gets.

Am I remembering this incorrectly but didn't this entire thing quickly fall off of their frontpage?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

The public is severely misinformed about the problems with health care in this country and it's surely in no small part because of the coverage (and subsequent debate) that dumb shit like this gets.

CNN is one news outlet, and one that was also directly threatened by the gif-maker not just with that gif, but with some anti-Semitic posts.

You've really got to do better.

Am I remembering this incorrectly but didn't this entire thing quickly fall off of their frontpage?

Yeah, by the time this thread got into full swing it was already gone.

 

[MrGerbils]

Am I remembering this incorrectly but didn't this entire thing quickly fall off of their frontpage?

Yet here we are on page 21.

Yup, Trump shouldn't repost shit that racist trolls made.

Agreed.

 

[BlastProcessing]

They're both threats pretending to not be threats. Just one is against someone you don't like so you've found a way not to care.

How many times in history do you think a news outlet has contacted someone for comment?

How many times in history do you think the President has told the Director of the FBI to stop investigating one of his subordinates?

 

[sir_kevith]

Am I remembering this incorrectly but didn't this entire thing quickly fall off of their frontpage?

It did, and there's plenty of other news outlets to go to. It was fuckin t_d that blew this up not CNN.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

The problem is that everyone has a problem with something. I want to feel comfortable saying things on GAF like "fuck Obama's drone strikes" and "Bush is a war criminal who should be in prison" without fear of losing my job, even though simple things like that are probably worthy of a company firing me over were it to become publicly tied to their public image.

And I'm not saying it's a slippery slope. I'm saying it's all fucked, and I don't think it's the media's place to inspire mob justice to police these things.

And guess what? There's thousands upon thousands of people saying and doing shitty stuff on the internet that the media doesn't go reporting about, but when you're directly connected to the president of the United States, you are going to be looked into. Anyone who interacts with the president usually has their name printed and people looking into their lives. If Donald Trump wasn't an evil idiot, he'd care about the fact that just by mentioning another person he's opening a can of worms. It's an inescapable reality for any famous person of interest and it carries a certain responsibility along with it.

Even then, your wish for the internet to be a big black hole where identity cannot escape isn't a reality, so people should be careful if they aren't willing to stand behind their actions. This has always been true and likely always will be.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

The public is severely misinformed about the problems with health care in this country and it's surely in no small part because of the coverage (and subsequent debate) that dumb shit like this gets.

It's nowhere to be found on cnn.com, and that's how it's mostly been the entire time..

Man, some y'all some really looking foolish over this shit.

 

[MrGerbils]

And guess what? There's thousands upon thousands of people saying and doing shitty stuff on the internet that the media doesn't go reporting about, but when you're directly connected to the president of the United States, you are going to be looked into. Anyone who interacts with the president usually has their name printed and people looking into their lives. If Donald Trump wasn't an evil idiot, he'd care about the fact that just by mentioning another person he's opening a can of worms. It's an inescapable reality for any famous person of interest and it carries a certain responsibility along with it.

Even then, your wish for the internet to be a big black hole where identity cannot escape isn't a reality, so people should be careful if they aren't willing to stand behind their actions. This has always been true and likely always will be.

I fully support shining a light on Trump's idiocy and the fact that he's retweeting a racist. I just don't think it's really that useful for the media to out (or threaten to our) the racist.

Similarly, while I realize the internet is not a black hole and actions have consequences, that won't ever stop me from speaking out against the thirst for mob justice, even if it is against an asshole.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

Where the President gets his news is important, uniquely so because Trump has no real convictions and tends to parrot who is closest to him. Seeing where it came from is a legitimate story, Now seeing it comes from a genocide advocating racist is also important because now it is of interest to see how the President of the US got that gif from that source.

Edit:

I fully support shining a light on Trump's idiocy and the fact that he's retweeting a racist. I just don't think it's really that useful for the media to out (or threaten to our) the racist.

Good lord, they didn't threaten to out him. Dude was happy as shit to claim his work and claim fame until he was found out in real life. He then posted his "apology" and no longer wanted to be apart of the story or be associated with it. CNN says if he wants to reinsert himself in the story than they can publish it because he wants to be apart of the story again.

 

[Gattsu25]

Yet here we are on page 21.

Because we're not CNN? NeoGAF also has a 42 page thread about Spider-Man Homecoming review scores. NeoGAF is not CNN 🤔

They're more concerned about the Trump meeting Putin, Betsy DeVos delaying debt relief for students that were victims of scam fake universities (resulting in 18 states suing to implement the debt relief), and the latest news with Trumpcare.

 

[Chumly]

Yet here we are on page 21.



Agreed.

The reason why we're on page 21 is people keep coming into the thread and posting bullshit

 

[MrGerbils]

Where the President gets his news is important, uniquely so because Trump has no real convictions and tends to parrot who is closest to him. Seeing where it came from is a legitimate story, Now seeing it comes from a genocide advocating racist is also important because now it is of interest to see how the President of the US got that gif from that source.

Again, I agree with all of this. But it in no way requires publishing (or threatening to publish) the dude's name.

The reason why we're on page 21 is people keep coming into the thread and posting bullshit

Apparently you've found it worthy enough to respond to.

 

[Chumly]

Apparently you've found it worthy enough to respond to.

Just pointing out the facts on why this thread is as long as it is.

 

[Gattsu25]

Apparently you've found it worthy enough to respond to.

You posted 1900% more than they did in this thread by that point.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Again, I agree with all of this. But it in no way requires publishing (or threatening to publish) the dude's name.



Apparently you've found it worthy enough to respond to.

People respond to bullshit more than they do straight forward comments. That's a big chunk of why Donald Trump gets as much attention as he does.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

Yet here we are on page 21.

You probably shouldn't be complaining about "insignificant" stories being discussed when you're an active agent in that discussion.

 

[Yeoman]

People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life.

This isn't what happened anyway but you seem to be ignoring the comments that are giving you the full story.


But on a side note: why do you think that people that post comments such as:

Deserve to get away with it?
There is no law that says they have the right to anonymity. Why do you have a problem with their exposure?

I find it interesting that you initially referred to those posts as "crappy" too.
That's a pretty nice way of putting it isn't it?
Why is it that you seem to have deemed those comments as merely "crappy" and are also in here defending his right to anonymity (which he isn't actually entitled to)?

 

[CaviarMeths]

I fully support shining a light on Trump's idiocy and the fact that he's retweeting a racist. I just don't think it's really that useful for the media to out (or threaten to our) the racist.

Similarly, while I realize the internet is not a black hole and actions have consequences, that won't ever stop me from speaking out against the thirst for mob justice, even if it is against an asshole.

You keep repeating phrases like "threatened" and "mob justice" over and over again, as if doing so makes them self-evident truths. Why have you still not read the posted article?

 

[Claude Augario]

Again, I agree with all of this. But it in no way requires publishing (or threatening to publish) the dude's name.



Apparently you've found it worthy enough to respond to.

The fact that they didn't publish his name is the oddity here - they've never withheld white supremacists names from articles before. And there was no "threat."

 

[shawnbuddy]

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

The public is severely misinformed about the problems with health care in this country and it's surely in no small part because of the coverage (and subsequent debate) that dumb shit like this gets.

Give it up, go back to Reddit. You're very bad at this and no one is buying it.

 

[HStallion]

People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life.

Good thing that isn't what happened.

Edit: Oh nevermind you're singing the same tired ass song.

 

[Clefargle]

I too am getting so sick and tired of multimedia conglomerate CNN constantly making huge investigative news stories(more like witch hunts) about anonymous internet people on social media whose "opinions" disparage them or offend them and revealing their information in attempts to have them publicly shamed. Enough is enough.

Wasn't really anonymous when he posted his personal information linking to his FB page on Reddit. The guy had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he went around doing dumb shit like that.

 

[RionaaM]

And the thread is derailed yet again. If anyone wonders why the thread got to 42 pages (50ppp is the best way to live), this is why.

 

[HStallion]

And the thread is derailed yet again. If anyone wonders why the thread got to 42 pages (50ppp is the best way to live), this is why.

Like that would matter to those who keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

 

[p2535748]

Again, I agree with all of this. But it in no way requires publishing (or threatening to publish) the dude's name..

Just so we're clear, why do you think they're threatening this guy? What's their goal by doing so? And. most importantly, why would they make that threat public instead of just threatening him in private?

The Trump example you brought up earlier makes sense as coercion - he asked everyone else to leave, and then made his request in private. That's the way coercion and blackmail usually work - in private. Why would CNN just straight up try to blackmail or threaten someone publicly?

I know you're not inclined to believe it, but think about what the notion that this is an explicit threat actually means. It means that somewhere along the line CNN, a massive corporation, decided to publicly threaten a guy in an article just to stop him from making more GIFs about them. Does that seem likely? Or does it seem more likely, as has been reported, that the offending passage is badly worded legalese that's being misinterpreted (willfully by some).

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Sure and Trump wasn't telling Comey he had to drop the investigation, just saying that he hoped to see him let it go. A perfectly normal thing for someone to say when they hope the best for a friend. Not a threat at all.

Because given the racist violent content of his profile, there's no justifiable reason that CNN could possibly have to ever out him, right? Fuck outta here.

Apparently you've found it worthy enough to respond to.

What a ridiculous retort. People don't like stupid shit going unchecked. It's not complicated.

 

[lush]

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

Blame POTUS and his inability to govern/not verbally shit all over himself on the daily. It's blatantly obvious why this would become a story. Also, in order to consistently report on "actual policy", "actual policy" is required.

The public is severely misinformed about the problems with health care in this country and it's surely in no small part because of the coverage (and subsequent debate) that dumb shit like this gets.

How so? The BCRA seems unanimously unpopular and almost dead tbh. Considering the extremely short time table that the GOP has tried to work with on this, people definitely seem extremely aware of the ramifications and ACA approval continues to increase as well.

I'll never understand people that whine about 24 hour news network programming.

 

[Horns]

I do wish they spent more time reporting on actual policy than investigating who made a gif on Reddit, yes.

The public is severely misinformed about the problems with health care in this country and it's surely in no small part because of the coverage (and subsequent debate) that dumb shit like this gets.

The bar for Trump (and Republicans) is so low that rather than criticize the president for posting gifs and focusing on policy, people criticize CNN for it. CNN doing it's job of following an incompetent president is not what they're supposed to do now. Oh and let's blame CNN for a misinformed public ignoring what the right wing media has been doing for the past 8 years. It's all CNNs fault said the misinformed.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

I strongly disagree with the idea that this was something unworthy of reporting for CNN. I want to know that POTUS is sourcing materials from racists and white supremacists groups.

 

[SomTervo]

Sure and Trump wasn't telling Comey he had to drop the investigation, just saying that he hoped to see him let it go. A perfectly normal thing for someone to say when they hope the best for a friend. Not a threat at all.

What?

Journalists can't report on anything unless they verify their info verbally, usually from at least two sources. They literally lose their jobs if they don't. Their editors would fire them.

That has been true for over a hundred years.

You're implying that this totally mundane journalistic practice is a strong-arming/threatening tactic?

They do it for cats stuck in trees, for god's saks

 

[TheCochese]

Sure and Trump wasn't telling Comey he had to drop the investigation, just saying that he hoped to see him let it go. A perfectly normal thing for someone to say when they hope the best for a friend. Not a threat at all.

This tells me so much.

 

[TankRizzo]

That guy was a real piece of shit. With that being said, I'm not sure that line should have been inserted in the story.