Dr. V's Magical Putter

[Soxbadger]

Thered be a lot more issues if everything else was true and the only secret was transgender. Then maybe there should have been some discretion that Dr v is hiding her identity.

[Balta1701]

Thered be a lot more issues if everything else was true and the only secret was transgender. Then maybe there should have been some discretion that Dr v is hiding her identity.

If the author had written the article about how this person had been hiding details from their background, fabricated potentially their education, wouldn't respond to questions about their education, and came up with credentials that couldn't be checked...would that not have been a quality article?

[Jenksismyhero]

Outing her to the business partner was certainly the worst part -- luckily, we think (and I emphasize the uncertainty in this) that he seemed to have taken that information in stride. On the other hand, I almost feel that this is the most forgivable part. This was, like much of it, a person with good intentions doing something dumb out of ignorance. I can understand how Hannan didn't realize that he needed to out her lies to this businessperson without outing her transgender status. The more I think about it, the more I believe he could have convinced that guy that she was a fraud and that her name had been changed without making it clear that the former name was a male name.

 

Much of the rest happens in the same vein, but was largely preventable. Many of the contentious points in the article, while plausibly benign and presumably of benign intention, were not presented in a manner that befits contentious points. The article that went to print, ultimately, was careless. The gendered pronouns late in the article were not horrible -- Hannan never referred to Essay Vanderbilt as "he" -- but he could have simply added a footnote or parenthetical comment that he isn't sure if Essay would have felt referring to her previous identity as "he" was appropriate. This is another case of editorial failure, as well, since one would hope these details would be picked up by an editor. The AP style book has recommendations on this.

 

When the chills go up his spine, he could easily have made it clear that they weren't chills because "ew, it's not a girl!" but because this was the moment he realized Essay was a fraud. Instead, it is ambiguous. Why the hell didn't an editor do something about this? It would have been quite simple to clarify what exactly the significance of that moment was.

 

Overall, it is a very good thing that this article has triggered a productive conversation about trans issues among a demographic that doesn't normally entertain these things. Trans people are quite clearly invisible, as we see in the article, but the article has in effect made their issues visible. This isn't without negative effects, obviously, since Essay's dignity indubitably suffered posthumously and possibly, the prying drove her more quickly to her death. Many people will fortify transphobic positions. Many others, who have not ever thought about these things, will now think about them. Caleb Hannan never realized the significance of outing someone. Now all of us do. I think all of us now would be much more judicious with that kind of knowledge and that's a good thing.

 

This is the part of the story that cracks me up - it's great we're having an open, productive conversation BUT NEVER TALK ABOUT SOMEONE BEING TRANSGENDERED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY. THAT'S WRONG!

 

[Soxbadger]

If the author had written the article about how this person had been hiding details from their background, fabricated potentially their education, wouldn't respond to questions about their education, and came up with credentials that couldn't be checked...would that not have been a quality article?

 

Why does the media have to lie about a fact?

 

There are consequences for being deceptive. Well never know how differently this had gone if Dr V had sent an email that said:

 

"Dear Grantland, thanks for your interest in my product. Id love to talk to you about it, but I want to first have you sign a NDA about certain issues. They will not be related at all to golf, the putter etc. If this is acceptable Id gladly discuss anything youd want."

 

Instead she sent a bulls*** email about classified nonsense. Basically she wanted the press, she just hoped that she could control the exposure.

 

Thats extremely stupid, you dont cover the truth with a lie, it ends poorly.

[Balta1701]

Why does the media have to lie about a fact?

 

There are consequences for being deceptive. Well never know how differently this had gone if Dr V had sent an email that said:

 

"Dear Grantland, thanks for your interest in my product. Id love to talk to you about it, but I want to first have you sign a NDA about certain issues. They will not be related at all to golf, the putter etc. If this is acceptable Id gladly discuss anything youd want."

 

Instead she sent a bulls*** email about classified nonsense. Basically she wanted the press, she just hoped that she could control the exposure.

 

Thats extremely stupid, you dont cover the truth with a lie, it ends poorly.

People already said in this thread that no reporter would agree to that, and a version of that was supposedly offered by Ms. Vanderbilt during their last conversation.

[iamshack]

Let's be fair here...as far as the article presented, the author did not seem to show interest in actually looking at the science of the putter itself. It was treated very tangentially in the article, and the article featured virtually no talking to anyone in the actual company or involved in the design, production, or promotion of the putter itself. The author never met with the main person in the story nor did he really seem to meet with anyone working on the product itself.

 

Based on the way that article was written...if Ms. Vanderbilt had offered additional details on the putter or the science, does it seem like the author would have been interested? Maybe he would have been, but the article itself doesn't show that at all.

 

He finds reasonable questions to ask about the background of the person, asks them, but in the process gets dropped a juicy personal detail and that becomes the #1 point of the article from that second on.

You can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that the reason the author could no longer look into the science behind the putter or the stated past of the inventor (the degrees, etc) is because IT DID NOT EXIST. When he tried to find it, he realized that. I don't understand why you keep suggesting the author could have written about these things as if they were there to be written about. As if there was a fork in the road where he chose between legitimate research and oh, this transgender angle is just so much better. When he went in search of one, all there was to be found was the other. When Vanderbilt realized this, she started behaving incredibly erratic. She did not try to steer him back to how she came up with the design of the putter, or where it was manufactured, or how and why it was the best putter on the market. She started insulting him and writing bizarre email responses about what an ass he was.

[Kyyle23]

If the author had written the article about how this person had been hiding details from their background, fabricated potentially their education, wouldn't respond to questions about their education, and came up with credentials that couldn't be checked...would that not have been a quality article?

 

That's the thing though, it started like that. You are acting as if the author found out first that Essay was transgendered and attacked it immediately. It was uncovered on the way to trying to uncover the truth about the persons credentials, accidentally. Exposing it to business partners was wrong, but finding it out wasn't wrong.

[illinilaw08]

This is the part of the story that cracks me up - it's great we're having an open, productive conversation BUT NEVER TALK ABOUT SOMEONE BEING TRANSGENDERED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY. THAT'S WRONG!

 

 

Come on Jenks... there's obviously a difference between talking about the issues that transgendered people generally face in this country (the numbers on suicide rates are literally insane) and outing an individual as transgendered.

[iamshack]

People already said in this thread that no reporter would agree to that, and a version of that was supposedly offered by Ms. Vanderbilt during their last conversation.

No, that is not what people said. What people said is that after Vanderbilt had lied to the author (and everyone else) and lashed out at him, in one last act of desperation, tried to unring the bell and have him come see her degrees and then agree not to publish the story, that no journalist would agree to that.

 

That is quite a bit different than what Badger is suggesting.

Edited January 21, 2014 by iamshack

[Soxbadger]

People already said in this thread that no reporter would agree to that, and a version of that was supposedly offered by Ms. Vanderbilt during their last conversation.

 

Then dont do the story? I have no idea, I get people to agree to all sorts of s*** all the time. If a company wanted to interview my client and wouldnt do it on my terms, they arent getting s***. They want the story, they play by the rules.

 

She had no obligation to divulge any information. And once again, had she not deceived people about her qualifications, this likely would have gone no where.

 

Basically you are arguing that there should be some inherent rule that we dont discuss sex in an article. Sorry but thats not how life goes. If you are a public figure, which Dr V chose to be, then expect youre life is going to be open to public viewing.

 

Id be a lot more concerned if this was just random off the street, a lot less concerned that this was someone trying to deceive people to raise money. If Madoff had been a christian not a jew, id expect theyd report it. Had he been in a gay love affair, id expect theyd report it. Had he been born Bernice, Id expect theyd report it.

 

The truth is the truth, and sometimes bad things happen when we report/tell the truth. Its much better than allowing the media to lie to us for whatever nonsense they make up this week (for our protection, for their protection, for whatever).

[Balta1701]

That's the thing though, it started like that. You are acting as if the author found out first that Essay was transgendered and attacked it immediately. It was uncovered on the way to trying to uncover the truth about the persons credentials, accidentally. Exposing it to business partners was wrong, but finding it out wasn't wrong.

The paragraph I just wrote said nothing of that. It asked whether the writer could have written a perfectly solid expose on the putter without the gender issues coming up at all. Frankly, yes he could have. I'd have to find the link again but I already saw a version of that where someone else had rewritten it in that way.

[Soxbadger]

The paragraph I just wrote said nothing of that. It asked whether the writer could have written a perfectly solid expose on the putter without the gender issues coming up at all. Frankly, yes he could have. I'd have to find the link again but I already saw a version of that where someone else had rewritten it in that way.

 

You want the media to filter what they tell people.

 

Id rather they dont. Even if that means something bad will happen, id rather we are told the truth, than lied to/omitted because our media overlords didnt believe that we could handle it.

[iamshack]

The paragraph I just wrote said nothing of that. It asked whether the writer could have written a perfectly solid expose on the putter without the gender issues coming up at all. Frankly, yes he could have. I'd have to find the link again but I already saw a version of that where someone else had rewritten it in that way.

Well if that is what we get as a result of being afraid to tell the truth about certain stories or issues, that really sucks.

[Rowand44]

The paragraph I just wrote said nothing of that. It asked whether the writer could have written a perfectly solid expose on the putter without the gender issues coming up at all. Frankly, yes he could have. I'd have to find the link again but I already saw a version of that where someone else had rewritten it in that way.

If that would have happened, I guarantee someone else would have discovered that Dr. V was transgendered and it would have became public knowledge anyways.

[Steve9347]

This is the part of the story that cracks me up - it's great we're having an open, productive conversation BUT NEVER TALK ABOUT SOMEONE BEING TRANSGENDERED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY. THAT'S WRONG!

Wait. What?

 

You are completely missing the point. Said person was not "out" when the author "outed" said person.

[Soxbadger]

Wait. What?

 

You are completely missing the point. Said person was not "out" when the author "outed" said person.

 

I think the real questions are:

 

1) Do public figures deserve privacy protection?

 

2) Does it matter if the public figure has deceived for potential profit?

 

3) Should we ask the media to filter stories for us?

 

I dont really know what is right here, I do know that when in doubt Id rather not let the media filter stories.

[Jenksismyhero]

Wait. What?

 

You are completely missing the point. Said person was not "out" when the author "outed" said person.

 

Yes she was, the lawyer from the town that sued her knew about it. As did the risk manager involved. That's how this guy was tipped off that she wasn't a woman her entire life.

 

And wasn't she dating her business partner at Yar? She clearly knew as well. As did most of her family (i'm assuming) because they wouldn't talk to the reporter about her.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[illinilaw08]

If that would have happened, I guarantee someone else would have discovered that Dr. V was transgendered and it would have became public knowledge anyways.

 

How is Dr. V being transgendered relevant to the lies she made about her credentials/the science behind the putter? It may be an interesting hook for a story, but the fact that Dr. V is transgendered is not relevant to whether or not the putter works... unless you think that Dr. V being transgendered was somehow a deception in itself. Accordingly, it's not the reporters role to out Dr. V to an investor.

 

Maybe it would have been discovered and become public knowledge down the road, but it's not relevant to the story itself (Vanderbilt created an elaborate web of deception about the magic putter). It's not the reporter's job to out her to anyone. Period.

 

I thought Simmons handled this well. It's clear that the article wasn't malicious (and some of the reaction to the reporter is reprehensible - death threats, outing public information about the reporter, etc.), but there was a significant amount of misunderstanding/ignorance of transgender issues that led to mistakes being made here.

[Soxbadger]

How is Dr. V being transgendered relevant to the lies she made about her credentials/the science behind the putter? It may be an interesting hook for a story, but the fact that Dr. V is transgendered is not relevant to whether or not the putter works... unless you think that Dr. V being transgendered was somehow a deception in itself. Accordingly, it's not the reporters role to out Dr. V to an investor.

 

Maybe it would have been discovered and become public knowledge down the road, but it's not relevant to the story itself (Vanderbilt created an elaborate web of deception about the magic putter). It's not the reporter's job to out her to anyone. Period.

 

I thought Simmons handled this well. It's clear that the article wasn't malicious (and some of the reaction to the reporter is reprehensible - death threats, outing public information about the reporter, etc.), but there was a significant amount of misunderstanding/ignorance of transgender issues that led to mistakes being made here.

 

I disagree. I dont think its the medias job to try and protect people who are deceiving others for financial gain.

 

Call me old fashioned, but if you lie/deceive to make money, Im not going to cry if your lies lead to the truth being found out. And Im not even going to get into whether being transgendered is deception, thats a question for someone on a higher pay grade.

 

As to what is relevant, once again, who judges relevance?

 

I think the irony is that if you really dont care about transgender, you likely dont consider this a big issue. Whether she was a man or woman has nothing to do with the fact that she seemingly was proven to be a liar.

 

So I think its interesting that people are focusing on true statement, instead of focusing on the actual relevant part of the article "This lady was someone who lied to make money".

[Jenksismyhero]

How is Dr. V being transgendered relevant to the lies she made about her credentials/the science behind the putter? It may be an interesting hook for a story, but the fact that Dr. V is transgendered is not relevant to whether or not the putter works... unless you think that Dr. V being transgendered was somehow a deception in itself. Accordingly, it's not the reporters role to out Dr. V to an investor.

 

Maybe it would have been discovered and become public knowledge down the road, but it's not relevant to the story itself (Vanderbilt created an elaborate web of deception about the magic putter). It's not the reporter's job to out her to anyone. Period.

 

I thought Simmons handled this well. It's clear that the article wasn't malicious (and some of the reaction to the reporter is reprehensible - death threats, outing public information about the reporter, etc.), but there was a significant amount of misunderstanding/ignorance of transgender issues that led to mistakes being made here.

 

Being a woman was just as much of a "lie" as having those degrees/job history. Even if she thought of herself as a woman her entire life, she didn't live as a woman all of her life. She was a male mechanic for years. Not a female scientist.

 

And again, it's the truth! Why would we want reporters to suppress the truth just because it might embarrass someone? When has that ever been a good reason?

[Steve9347]

Being a woman was just as much of a "lie" as having those degrees/job history.

There's quite a disconnect with your feelings and how the whole transgendered community feels.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's quite a disconnect with your feelings and how the whole transgendered community feels.

 

I guess, but that doesn't really change the fact that she did live as man for a period of her life even if she later became a woman (or even consciously thought of herself as a woman).

Edited January 21, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Buehrle>Wood]

I think the real questions are:

 

1) Do public figures deserve privacy protection?

 

2) Does it matter if the public figure has deceived for potential profit?

 

3) Should we ask the media to filter stories for us?

 

I dont really know what is right here, I do know that when in doubt Id rather not let the media filter stories.

1. To an extent.

 

2. Greatly yes. You forfeit the right to a private background once you have deceived based on a background.

 

3. Absolutely not.

[Dick Allen]

The author agreed to a phone conversation strickly about the science of the putter and not the scientist. Then Dr. V started volunteering this false information which couldn't be verified, and ultimately led to a background check.

 

Unless she left a note which wasn't reported, how can Kahrl and anyone else say without a doubt the reason for her suicide was she was about to be outed as a transgender? She attempted before for a different reason. Maybe she did it because her Dr. V fantasy with the fact degrees, stealth bomber work...was about to be exposed as fake. Sure he seemed unstable when he asked on a follow up conversation to verify her personal information, but as was stated by her investor, that was par for the course when not doing everything her way.

 

I didn't take away her being a transgender was mentioned to make her look weird, I think it was mentioned because it was part of the story trying to verify information she happily volunteered.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Dick Allen

[illinilaw08]

Being a woman was just as much of a "lie" as having those degrees/job history. Even if she thought of herself as a woman her entire life, she didn't live as a woman all of her life. She was a male mechanic for years. Not a female scientist.

 

And again, it's the truth! Why would we want reporters to suppress the truth just because it might embarrass someone? When has that ever been a good reason?

 

The relevant point in your first paragraph is that she was a mechanic for years... not a scientist. Whether she was male or female when doing that job is irrelevant to her qualifications to make a magic putter.