is it possible for you make posts in a thread that don't involve israel? why do you keep repeating yourself? do you have no one you can talk to in real life? why druff permits this i have no ideaOriginally Posted by FPS_Russia
what is your mental illness? is this autism? what makes you the way you are? you probably know you're "different" but what is your condition exactly?
Last edited by blake; 07-05-2017 at 05:34 PM.
the catch-22, of course, is that fps would not recognize his brain is defective because his brain is defective.
I agree that the "He's 15 years old!!!111" thing is annoying, and is just creating a needless distraction.
They're not accomplishing anything by pushing that lie, because the truth is bad enough, even with the guy being an adult.
Though it was funny seeing that KFILE guy twist in the wind on his Twitter, trying to remind everyone that the guy he exposed isn't really 15.
He got a million "So you're saying it's okay to blackmail someone, as long as they're an adult?" type responses, and to be honest, he deserved all of them.
Oh, and I just kicked FPS out of this thread.
He will be kicked out of other threads if he continues posting incoherent, off-topic nonsense.
No, his identity is not guaranteed private.
However, it's disturbing for any large news media organization to place behavioral conditions upon whether someone's identity gets leaked or not.
There should be two choices:
1) Reveal the guy's identity because it's newsworthy enough to do so
-or-
2) Keep the guy's identity private because his identity isn't that important, and he's a private citizen who will suffer once his name gets out
Instead, CNN chose:
3) Keep his identity private, as long as he apologizes and stops writing trollish things on the internet
The decision to keep his name private should never be due to him making an apology or the expectation that he will change his behavior going forward.
That's the big problem everyone has here. In my 45 years on this earth, I have never once seen another example in mainstream journalism where someone's identity is withheld contingent upon their future behavior, regarding how they exercise their right to free speech.
It was even more reprehensible how CNN made a top-story article about the matter, complete with victory-lap threat about how he was "nervous" and how they reserve the right to reveal his identity if he keeps posting things they don't like.
Regarding your assertion that CNN did him a "favor", that's nonsense. CNN made an extensive effort to analyze his posts and deduce his real identity based upon that. Why? What was the importance of finding out the identity behind the guy who made the GIF/video sent out by Trump? Clearly the story was Trump tweeting it, NOT the name of the person who made it.
This was definitely a case of CNN attempting to dig dirt on its perceived enemies, finding such dirt, and then holding the dirt over that enemy's head in order to make them squirm. When he did squirm, they posted a front-page article about it, complete with threat to reveal his identity if he doesn't stay in line.
The fact that you're okay with major news organizations engaging in such behavior is chilling.
I agree that the "He's 15 years old!!!111" thing is annoying, and is just creating a needless distraction.
They're not accomplishing anything by pushing that lie, because the truth is bad enough, even with the guy being an adult.
Though it was funny seeing that KFILE guy twist in the wind on his Twitter, trying to remind everyone that the guy he exposed isn't really 15.
He got a million "So you're saying it's okay to blackmail someone, as long as they're an adult?" type responses, and to be honest, he deserved all of them.
The way I understood the story, KFILE didn't put that "threat" in the article, an editor did. So CNN boned him, too.
No it's not comparable to a cute animal story. But like cute animal stories how newsworthy any particular news item is has very little to do with why it gets aired.You are deliberately dancing around the two biggest issues:
1) CNN directly stated that they were tying the release/non-release of his info to his future behavior on the internet.
2) CNN made their gloating about finding him their top story for most of July 4, 2017.
This does not compare to "cute animal" stories which are buried at the end of newscasts or in the corner of a news website.
Had CNN felt that identifying this guy was in the interest of the public, they should have done so.
Had they felt that his identity should remain private, they should have either kept quiet or simply stated that they are not releasing his information because he's a private citizen.
Instead, they made the whole thing their top story, and made sure to clarify that they are only withholding his info because he "apologized", and might change their minds if he continues trolling on the internet.
This goes beyond typical investigative journalism, and was very much a case of implied blackmail.
I say "implied" because CNN didn't have to directly threaten him with anything. They knew he would panic once they contacted him and revealed all they had found. Once they got the "nervous" phone call from him and saw the hasty apology post, they felt satisfied that they had humiliated him sufficiently. At that point, they did a self-righteous victory lap via a front page article, complete with threat to expose him if he steps out of line again.
The fact that you think this is standard behavior for a multi-billion-dollar news organization is astounding to me.
Why would you expect standard behavior for a news organization that's been under attack for more than year now? It should be obvious that they are going to check every lead that could hurt Trump. And they are going to air all the dirt they find.
You see there is no reason for them to be impartial or non-biased in their news coverage. Only thing that matters if they are truthful and factual.
Incidentally there was another blackmail related story that involved a news organization less than week ago...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-enquirer.html
...what are the odds that the other side gets accused of blackmail a few days later. Well if you have been following these things it's practically a lock.
I'm begging you
PLEASE boot FPS Retard from the Trump thread PERMANENTLY
the guy is literally the worst poster I've ever seen in my entire life....except for maybe Sonny
ONE TIME
TIA
The 3) is just factually wrong and misleading. There was no agreement of any kind. There was no negotiation of any kind.However, it's disturbing for any large news media organization to place behavioral conditions upon whether someone's identity gets leaked or not.
3) Keep his identity private, as long as he apologizes and stops writing trollish things on the internet
The decision to keep his name private should never be due to him making an apology or the expectation that he will change his behavior going forward.
That's the big problem everyone has here. In my 45 years on this earth, I have never once seen another example in mainstream journalism where someone's identity is withheld contingent upon their future behavior, regarding how they exercise their right to free speech.
There are always behavioral conditions to anonymity unless an NDA of some kind is signed. Otherwise anonymity is given for the piece it relates to for a limited time depending of something else popping up later. This is very very standard.
Say in this case, if the guy commits murder-suicide on Friday (or thousands of other things worthy of news coverage), his anonymity is gone and both news pieces will be tied to his identity.
That's a poor excuse you're making for them.No it's not comparable to a cute animal story. But like cute animal stories how newsworthy any particular news item is has very little to do with why it gets aired.
Why would you expect standard behavior for a news organization that's been under attack for more than year now? It should be obvious that they are going to check every lead that could hurt Trump. And they are going to air all the dirt they find.
You see there is no reason for them to be impartial or non-biased in their news coverage. Only thing that matters if they are truthful and factual.
Incidentally there was another blackmail related story that involved a news organization less than week ago...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-enquirer.html
...what are the odds that the other side gets accused of blackmail a few days later. Well if you have been following these things it's practically a lock.
"It should be obvious that they are going to check every lead that could hurt Trump. And they are going to air all the dirt they find."
That's already a big problem. Major news organizations with a 36-year history of being mostly centrist shouldn't become highly biased just because the President bashes them. They need to have a thick skin and simply continue doing their jobs fairly and neutrally.
Besides, Trump's issue with them is legitimate. They really have been out to get him since he got nominated. While his repeated attacks upon them since have been somewhat immature, he didn't just imagine their bias against him.
Even if you want to say that it's reasonable for CNN to be going after Trump, that doesn't have much to do with this story. They were going after a private citizen -- basically a lone internet troll -- who never had any contact with Trump or his people.
They don't need an actual agreement to commit implied blackmail against someone.The 3) is just factually wrong and misleading. There was no agreement of any kind. There was no negotiation of any kind.
There are always behavioral conditions to anonymity unless an NDA of some kind is signed. Otherwise anonymity is given for the piece it relates to for a limited time depending of something else popping up later. This is very very standard.
Say in this case, if the guy commits murder-suicide on Friday (or thousands of other things worthy of news coverage), his anonymity is gone and both news pieces will be tied to his identity.
Look at the fictitious example regarding how I could have blackmailed "Mike" the forum troll after seeing him cheating on his wife. In my example, I could have simply sent him the proof I had, and that would have automatically shut him down from continuing to troll me.
Pretty much the same thing here. CNN didn't need to strike any agreement with this guy, as they knew from the start that he would likely panic once they identified him.
They removed all doubt that there were speech-related behavioral conditions from the language of their article.
Clearly the right they "reserved" to name him in the future wasn't tied to him being involved in criminal behavior in the future. They specifically named what he had been doing in the past, said that he apologized and promised to stop, and that they reserved the right to reveal his identity "if this changes".
DRUFF please stop procrastinating and make the show threadThey don't need an actual agreement to commit implied blackmail against someone.
Look at the fictitious example regarding how I could have blackmailed "Mike" the forum troll after seeing him cheating on his wife. In my example, I could have simply sent him the proof I had, and that would have automatically shut him down from continuing to troll me.
Pretty much the same thing here. CNN didn't need to strike any agreement with this guy, as they knew from the start that he would likely panic once they identified him.
They removed all doubt that there were speech-related behavioral conditions from the language of their article.
Clearly the right they "reserved" to name him in the future wasn't tied to him being involved in criminal behavior in the future. They specifically named what he had been doing in the past, said that he apologized and promised to stop, and that they reserved the right to reveal his identity "if this changes".
That is your choice to interpret CNN's behavior. After the 10 years I've seen you post, you never question the rightwing narrative you have been given.No, his identity is not guaranteed private.
However, it's disturbing for any large news media organization to place behavioral conditions upon whether someone's identity gets leaked or not.
There should be two choices:
1) Reveal the guy's identity because it's newsworthy enough to do so
-or-
2) Keep the guy's identity private because his identity isn't that important, and he's a private citizen who will suffer once his name gets out
Instead, CNN chose:
3) Keep his identity private, as long as he apologizes and stops writing trollish things on the internet
The decision to keep his name private should never be due to him making an apology or the expectation that he will change his behavior going forward.
That's the big problem everyone has here. In my 45 years on this earth, I have never once seen another example in mainstream journalism where someone's identity is withheld contingent upon their future behavior, regarding how they exercise their right to free speech.
It was even more reprehensible how CNN made a top-story article about the matter, complete with victory-lap threat about how he was "nervous" and how they reserve the right to reveal his identity if he keeps posting things they don't like.
Regarding your assertion that CNN did him a "favor", that's nonsense. CNN made an extensive effort to analyze his posts and deduce his real identity based upon that. Why? What was the importance of finding out the identity behind the guy who made the GIF/video sent out by Trump? Clearly the story was Trump tweeting it, NOT the name of the person who made it.
This was definitely a case of CNN attempting to dig dirt on its perceived enemies, finding such dirt, and then holding the dirt over that enemy's head in order to make them squirm. When he did squirm, they posted a front-page article about it, complete with threat to reveal his identity if he doesn't stay in line.
The fact that you're okay with major news organizations engaging in such behavior is chilling.
CNN posted that one sentence which was odd, but surely there is nothing wrong with stating they reserve the right to publish full names of people involved.
If you were to approach this from a different place cognitively, you'd see it completely different.
"blackmail" is just funny and a huge stretch. Clearly a threat, but a threat is not blackmail.
I like how you even read into this being some conspiracy for CNN to destroy some random guy with some meh video editting skills. I can come up with a dozen reasons why they'd look into researching the guy who made the twit. Perhaps he could have been part of some larger group that showed some interesting conspiracy. You act like they must have hired a whole team of investigators when it was likely one dude who wasn't terribly busy with anything else at the moment. "CNN made an extensive effort .." You sure?
"chilling". No, this is nonsensical. The guy can make a new reddit account and do whatever he wishes. You sound as bad as a SJW.
Should a media organization commit to never revealing those who post anti-semitic stuff, just because the anti-semitics attacked the media organization first? Seriously? Thats what I gather from reading what you say.
Not even close to the same thingThen you are guilty of blackmailing that sports bookie who stiffed you by threatening to out him if he didn't do what you wanted him to do, as well as encouraging others owed money by slow-payers to do likewise.
HILLARY WON
I agree with Druff that the decision to publish his name should be made solely for journalism reasons, never because of conflict between the news organization and the subject of the reporting. It's either newsworthy or it's not. I also believe it's reasonable to decide that it's not newsworthy unless the guy produces future controversial content and then it becomes newsworthy, but again this decision should be made for journalism reasons, not out of the news organization's self-interest, and they should not state this decision in a way that creates an appearance of self-interest or pressures the subject. For them to say it, especially in the way they did, just looks bad. It also made me wonder whether they were saying it to prevent another news organization from later claiming to have scooped them? As in, "we know the guy's name, we're just not publishing it now, so don't think we were incapable of digging it up."
Either way, this is not the death of CNN. CNN will be just fine.
HILLARY WON
Hoser pretty much already touched this subject where you seem to think that any left leaning or centrist news org (or SNL for that matter) should have different standards than the right.That's a poor excuse you're making for them.
"It should be obvious that they are going to check every lead that could hurt Trump. And they are going to air all the dirt they find."
That's already a big problem. Major news organizations with a 36-year history of being mostly centrist shouldn't become highly biased just because the President bashes them. They need to have a thick skin and simply continue doing their jobs fairly and neutrally.
Besides, Trump's issue with them is legitimate. They really have been out to get him since he got nominated. While his repeated attacks upon them since have been somewhat immature, he didn't just imagine their bias against him.
Even if you want to say that it's reasonable for CNN to be going after Trump, that doesn't have much to do with this story. They were going after a private citizen -- basically a lone internet troll -- who never had any contact with Trump or his people.
Left have to fight with their hands tied behind their back while the right can be as biased and as untruthful as they please.
And once again they didn't go after a private citizen. He wasn't in any way unfairly targeted. He was relevant to the story. They asked to interview him by e-mail. This is all very standard.
If the presidency is a complete shit show, it's responsibility of every news org to go after him. Also very standard.
Yeah implied blackmail isn't an actual thing and i'm fairly sure you know that. And this really can't be first time you've seen in writing that someone reserves the right to do whatever.They don't need an actual agreement to commit implied blackmail against someone.
Look at the fictitious example regarding how I could have blackmailed "Mike" the forum troll after seeing him cheating on his wife. In my example, I could have simply sent him the proof I had, and that would have automatically shut him down from continuing to troll me.
Pretty much the same thing here. CNN didn't need to strike any agreement with this guy, as they knew from the start that he would likely panic once they identified him.
They removed all doubt that there were speech-related behavioral conditions from the language of their article.
Clearly the right they "reserved" to name him in the future wasn't tied to him being involved in criminal behavior in the future. They specifically named what he had been doing in the past, said that he apologized and promised to stop, and that they reserved the right to reveal his identity "if this changes".
The example of Mike also isn't blackmail in any way. Just sending the proof to Mike just isn't enough. On the other hand if with the proof you added a note that you "wished" that Mike would stop trolling then you might have something.
In the CNN case if the apology, deleted posts and promise to behave in the future were somehow tied to releasing his name you would have something. But they simply were not. Order of events is known and the action of all parties.
After reading the reporter's statement it seems to me that the name was withheld to avoid embarrasing him because it's not newsworthy to release his name, but if he made any more newsworthy statements they might identify him, in other words they did not discuss anonymity with him as they might have with a source.
I still think it was poorly phrased and should have been explained better but it's not blackmail.
HILLARY WON
I saw others referencing this.. so I am belatedly replying.
No, not at all the same thing.
CNN doesn't really care that someone makes a photoshopped video that is goofy. Everyone gets a kick out of it, heck even liberals such as myself. In the end if means so sooo little. CNN really doesn't care. I mean, who in CNN management is calling the goons on meme makers???
You have projected some personal analogy onto that of a large media organization. Large media organizations don't care about 4chan meme makers. Now, you might care, if a meme-maker started going after you on PFA etc, but do not conflate a large media organization with your personal issues on forums.
Seeing "smart" guys regurgitating propaganda always makes me want to say something.
CNN handled this poorly. It looks bad. They have threatened the guy in some manner. That threat is a bit LOL, but it exists. It is easy to agree on these things, but it isn't "blackmail" or very close to the analogy given above.
Nah, not really. If you are an important person, you get anonymity clauses in what you say. If you're just a plebe like most of us, they try to bully you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote