Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where’s _why?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 191 posts

Re: Where’s _why?

#81

Post by thaumaturgy »

davidw wrote: post #22
raganwald wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. Your repeated emails and messages left for him obviously informed him. We’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes responsible journalism with respect to “trying to interview him.” Once he’s aware that you want to interview him and chooses not to respond, I’d say you tried. Your acti…

A few phone calls do not a paparazzo make. _why, with virtually no effort, maintained his privacy. The upvotes demonstrate that people are interested in the person, and it's a journalist's job to probe . Sometimes more so than other people would be comfortable with. While that can be awkward, I think it's a good thing, although in this case it doesn't matter so much.

It may be a journalist's job to probe, but it is a fellow human's job to have empathy. raganwald is perfectly correct in distinguishing between _why as a public figure, and the man behind _why as a private one. The man behind _why clearly wished to remain private; why are his wishes not being respected?

I think that you are being dismissive when you say, "a few phone calls". From the article, the author tried: asking RubyConf attendees, asking people he had been known to have a working relationship with, wrote him a letter, called his home phone, contacted a former employer, searched patent records to discover his current employer, and contacted his current employer, not to mention in the process naming his wife's Twitter account, publishing his real name, and publishing the name of his current employer.

That's pretty poor form, and I don't think that "journalism" is an appropriate excuse.

Like raganwald, I really liked every other aspect of the article. It's well written and I enjoyed taking the time to sit down and read it with a cup of hot chocolate. But -- and this is a big "but", one that eclipses everything in the article that I enjoyed -- I was tremendously disappointed at seeing the private man behind _why outed as he was in the article.

Re: Where’s _why?

#82

Post by telemachos »

raganwald wrote: post #5

Let’s see now. The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine. And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him trying to get him to comment about the article. Sen…

In college, I went through a Thomas Pynchon phase. I read everything of his I could get my hands on, and I tried to learn everything I could about him. Like Salinger and _why, he doesn't want you to do that. No photos, no interviews, etc. I tracked down stories he had written but banned from being reprinted (elusive photocopies that I still love), I read books written by his friends (?!), I wandered around the library in NYC where he wrote a lot of his first novel, I subscribed to a journal devoted solely to his writings (and struck up a friendship with the journal's editor), I even went so far as to phone his then publisher and try to get an interview (lying and claiming I wrote for a college paper).

Everything beyond "reading his books" was silly, and some of what I did was invasive (if not very inventively so). So what is my point? There's something powerfully magnetic about certain people - despite their telling us to stay away, and maybe even more so because they tell us to stay away. I'm not sure that I really disagree with what you're saying, but I think there's almost a degree of inevitability about people wanting to know more in such a case. It's how many of us are made.

Re: Where’s _why?

#83

Post by thaumaturgy »

mbreese wrote: post #30
raganwald wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question here: Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a “public figure?" Does publishing open source make you a public figure? How about speaking at a conference? Playing in a band under a pseudonym? Playing in a band under your real name? Commenting under a pseudonym on Hacker News? How about commenting under an identifiable handle like rbraithwaite? I honestly don’t have a pat answer to this questio…

Neither do I... and I think people will disagree on this. Programmers like being able to make strict rules for stuff, but I think that this is one of those "you know it when you see it" moments. And to make it more complicated - I don't necessarily think that it is up to the person to decide. Unfortunately, to some degree, the public gets a say.

The public gets a say, true, but the public is made up of individuals, and each individual has the ability and responsibility of deciding how to handle someone else.

We aren't talking so much about the public here as we are about one person -- Annie Lowrey -- who made the decision to publicize the contact information for someone who clearly wished to remain more private.

Re: Where’s _why?

#84

Post by goatforce5 »

icebraining wrote: post #62
goatforce5 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Being a journalist doesn't give someone an excuse to act outside the bounds of polite society." I thought we expected journalists to dig a bit deeper and not just take things at face value? Sometimes that means poking around when people might prefer you not to be.

I think that's valid when there's a suspicion of a crime, or of an hypocrisy by a politician, because that's a damage to society and it's fair to have the person punished by it. Doing the same to a person because she did someone good is essentially punishing good deeds.

"Doing the same to a person because she did someone good is essentially punishing good deeds."

I'm not sure a journalist trying to get in touch with you amounts to a punishment. The hypocritical politician probably doesn't find it much fun, but they're being given a chance to present their side of the story.

Note that, for example, in Australia the very first point of the Code of Ethics that Journalists sign up to says:

"1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply."

Doing your utmost means not leaving one voicemail and hoping for the best. What if _why did have something to say, but his phone number had changed? I imagine that a reputable publication like Salon would have stopped trying to get in touch if he'd given a simple 'no comment' to any of their approaches.

(Also, define 'good'. Did a protestor who stopped the logging company from cutting down some trees do good for saving the environment, or was it bad he cost some jobs?)

Re: Where’s _why?

#85

Post by ozten »

AnnieLowrey wrote: post #11
raganwald wrote: post #5

Let’s see now. The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine. And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him trying to get him to comment about the article. Sen…

Hi there, raganwald, Annie here. I think this is a completely valid criticism, and it's one I largely expected. But for what it is worth, here are my thoughts. As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. (As a general point, you don't write articles about public figures, and he was absolutely a public figure, without giving them the chan…

_why did nothing but good things for the public internet. It is beyond the pale to print his real name, city, and current employer.

Re: Where’s _why?

#86

Post by mbreese »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #83
mbreese wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither do I... and I think people will disagree on this. Programmers like being able to make strict rules for stuff, but I think that this is one of those "you know it when you see it" moments. And to make it more complicated - I don't necessarily think that it is up to the person to decide. Unfortunately, to some degree, the public gets a say.

The public gets a say, true, but the public is made up of individuals, and each individual has the ability and responsibility of deciding how to handle someone else. We aren't talking so much about the public here as we are about one person -- Annie Lowrey -- who made the decision to publicize the contact information for someone who clearly wished to remain more private.

Don't forget though, she is a professional journalist writing a story for a professional publication. She didn't setup some 'whyisfoobarbaz.wordpress.com' blog with the sole purpose of outing him. That's already happened.

Re: Where’s _why?

#87

Post by wpietri »

raganwald wrote: post #5

Let’s see now. The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine. And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him trying to get him to comment about the article. Sen…

It's not so clear to me that a person has the right to intentionally become a public figure and then vanish at the moment of their choosing.

_Why has a perfect right not to answer questions, but having raised those questions in the most dramatic way possible, I don't think he has a right for people not to ask.

Re: Where’s _why?

#88

Post by thaumaturgy »

knowtheory wrote: post #49
raganwald wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for responding. Now that I reflect on it, I guess it’s a little like sales. There are some salespeople whose persistence crosses deep into “intrusive” territory, and others who are polite to the point of deference, and every variation in between. Unless you’re at one end or the other, there will always be many people who agree with your choice and some number of people who disagree with your choice. If we l…

Hey Reg, I'm curious to what extent you believe that private citizens have a right not to be reported on. If Annie Lowrey had decided to interview Reg Braithwaite and couldn't get a hold of you, if she'd pursued a similar course of action, would it have been intrusive? I get that having made something public once does not necessarily mean that one opens their life up to scrutiny forever and ever, but to what extent d…

I realize that your comment was directed entirely to raganwald, but while people here are pondering to what extent private people should be reported on, nobody seems to be considering why someone might want to remain private, and how becoming public might affect them.

I write a monthly column for a local newspaper and occasionally give local talks and so on. Once in a while someone I've never met recognizes me, which at the moment is both neat and a little unsettling. Within about a 10 mile radius of my adopted home town, I'm no longer an entirely private person. One of my clients' more curious sons tracked down my contact information -- it wasn't very hard to do, but it was a personal first.

The problem is that, as a private individual, I have made decisions that are nuanced and not easily explained in three sentences. They are decisions that would be polarizing to others; if they became public, it could do a lot of damage.

I have family members and friends to consider. I am rarely entirely anonymous anymore, so I rarely get to talk about some subjects that I would dearly love to talk about. Part of my thought process behind every comment I leave on HN now is, "What if one of my clients read this?"

We have no idea what _why's personal life looks like. We have no idea what his motivations are behind wishing to remain private. It is entirely possible -- I would even say likely -- that he has very good reasons for wishing to remain private, which are known only to him and perhaps a couple of other people.

By attempting to treat him as a public figure, or as a private citizen which we have some "right" to report on, we are risking doing real, measurable, and possibly serious harm either to him or to his property or to his life, and all for the sake of nothing more than our own idle morbid curiosity.

I'm quite surprised there are so many people here that are defending that calculus.

Re: Where’s _why?

#89

Post by wpietri »

raganwald wrote: post #17
AnnieLowrey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there, raganwald, Annie here. I think this is a completely valid criticism, and it's one I largely expected. But for what it is worth, here are my thoughts. As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. (As a general point, you don't write articles about public figures, and he was absolutely a public figure, without giving them the chan…

As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. Your repeated emails and messages left for him obviously informed him. We’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes responsible journalism with respect to “trying to interview him.” Once he’s aware that you want to interview him and chooses not to respond, I’d say you tried. Your acti…

I'm interested in your assertion that creating a very public persona doesn't make you a public figure. Could you say more about your theory behind that?

Re: Where’s _why?

#90

Post by raganwald »

davesims wrote: post #75
raganwald wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my impression right of the bat with "Let's see now" and onward was that you were being harshly critical. I was being harshly critical of calling the man at work and naming him. I also wrote: The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and not…

Sure, not a book review for NYT, but it is the top comment on HN, which has the unfortunate consequence of being the first impression a lot of people had of an article that had a lot of hard, thoughtful work put into it. It also caused some to actually not read the article, and that's what drew me out. Annie's work here deserved a better first impression from the HN community, and I think anyone who has an interest i…

I feel for you. I have felt the same way. Not so long ago, someone resubmitted an old essay of mine about coffee machines and open source.

In that essay, I called myself a small-s socialist.

What do you suppose was the top comment on the HN discussion? A long diatribe about someone’s pet subject, Libertarianism, which generated more than half of the ensuing comments.

It seems that on Hacker News, one man’s signal is another man’s noise.

Post reply on HN