Dr. V's Magical Putter

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Reporters always make choices on what information to publish for a wide variety of reasons. Not everything is relevant or worth publishing.

[bmags]

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?

 

I mean, no.

[StrangeSox]

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

 

that's a remarkably insulting thing to say.

[Soxbadger]

Reporters always make choices on what information to publish for a wide variety of reasons. Not everything is relevant or worth publishing.

 

When in doubt give me the information. This wasnt like she gave them information about mob murders and they posted her address/picture.

 

She lied to a reporter, the reporter found out and wrote a story.

 

It just seems like there is a disconnect here. Since when do we protect lies?

[illinilaw08]

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) Yes, subject to reasonable limitations.

 

2) I think it's a question of whether it's relevant to the deception.

 

3) No, but we also shouldn't ask them to sensationalize the story either. Here, the relevant truth is that Vanderbilt falsified qualifications and engaged in an elaborate deception about the magic putter. That's the story. The transgender angle here merely serves to sensationalize the story.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

What? It's incredibly relevant. The whole point of the story ended up being "this person is not who she claimed to be." Her gender is just one fact out of many that leads to that conclusion.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

When in doubt give me the information. This wasnt like she gave them information about mob murders and they posted her address/picture.

 

She lied to a reporter, the reporter found out and wrote a story.

 

It just seems like there is a disconnect here. Since when do we protect lies?

 

That she was transgendered wasn't necessarily relevant to the lies about her credentials, nor was any of it really relevant to whether the science behind the putter is valid.

 

Being transgendered and not divulging the past isn't a lie. The lie was where she supposedly got some degrees and where she had worked. I understand that, in his attempt to uncover her background, he found out about this information. That information is perhaps relevant to the story, though the same story could largely have been written without divulging that particular bit of information. That would only be protecting a very private personal history, not the lies told about credentials or work history.

[Soxbadger]

1) Yes, subject to reasonable limitations.

 

2) I think it's a question of whether it's relevant to the deception.

 

3) No, but we also shouldn't ask them to sensationalize the story either. Here, the relevant truth is that Vanderbilt falsified qualifications and engaged in an elaborate deception about the magic putter. That's the story. The transgender angle here merely serves to sensationalize the story.

 

 

I think the problem is when it comes to 2/3. I think her being a man/woman is relevant, because part of the deception was her background. The reality is, the reporter had no way of truly verifying what he wrote. He basically uncovered a puzzle and presented the evidence.

 

What was he going to do, lie to the reader?

 

At her previous employment she was not Dr V, she was X. If he omitted saying she was X, anyone who tried to verify her employment would not find her. Its no different than finding out I changed my name and saying that when I previously worked at Dominicks my name was Soxwolverine.

 

Its not relevant that I was once a Michigan fan, but its part of my identity and what they found. If I kill myself out of shame for being a wolverine fan, is that the authors fault?

 

Strange Sox,

 

Once again you want the author to write "I found out Dr Vee didnt do any of those jobs" and just end it there. What type of a bulls*** article is that? If you found out where she really worked you write about it, and if she was working under the name Mr. Dr Vee, you write that too.

 

This reporter did not go out of his way to harm anyone, he just uncovered a story and published it. Its just bulls*** that anyone would want something different. Its not his job to be the moral compass for America.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

What? It's incredibly relevant. The whole point of the story ended up being "this person is not who she claimed to be." Her gender is just one fact out of many that lead to that conclusion.

 

She claimed to be E. Vanderbilt, and she was.

[Jenksismyhero]

that's a remarkably insulting thing to say.

 

So transgendered people have the power to rewrite their past? She never applied for 2 marriage licenses as a man? That never happened?

[Jenksismyhero]

She claimed to be E. Vanderbilt, and she was.

 

For a period of her life. Not when she lived her life as Stephen Krohl or whatever the name was (at the time she was claiming to be a female scientist).

[StrangeSox]

So transgendered people have the power to rewrite their past? She never applied for 2 marriage licenses as a man? That never happened?

 

She was not lying when she called herself a woman. She had the power to self-identify as a woman, and did so.

 

Saying she had these family connections, that she worked on the B-2, that she graduated from MIT were lies. Is she had explicitly denied having been Steven Krohl in the past, that would have been a lie (though a very understandable one in most contexts). Identifying herself as a woman was not a lie.

[Soxbadger]

She was not lying when she called herself a woman. She had the power to self-identify as a woman, and did so.

 

Saying she had these family connections, that she worked on the B-2, that she graduated from MIT were lies. Is she had explicitly denied having been Steven Krohl in the past, that would have been a lie (though a very understandable one in most contexts). Identifying herself as a woman was not a lie.

 

But isnt the article incomplete unless I look into both names? Isnt the only way I can actually verify if Dr V went to MIT is if I check the record for both Steven Krohl and Dr Vee?

 

How do I tell my audience that I actually did the research and appropriately vetted this?

 

What if he only looked into Dr Vee and wrote a piece and then Dr Vee sued Grantland for slander/defamation by proving Steven Krohl did go to MIT?

 

What exactly do we want here?

[StrangeSox]

For a period of her life. Not when she lived her life as Stephen Krohl or whatever the name was (at the time she was claiming to be a female scientist).

 

Identifying herself as E. Vanderbilt was not a lie. Her claimed credentials were a lie.

 

The other day I was watching something about Jeffery Dahmer, so I ended up on his wiki page. It said that his brother changed his name and lives in anonymity. Is he telling a "lie" if he goes by his new name? Would it be ethical for a reporter investigating a story unrelated to his brother but who discovered his original name to publish that information?

 

I understand that in this case, the reporter uncovered Dr. V's past identity while trying to trace down Dr. V's credentials (and failing to do so). I think there is an interesting dilemma here, because validating these claimed credentials really was a part of the story and getting the information to check under her former identity is part of the research that he did. It's not a simple issue, and I think it's wrong to dismiss any of the concerns of the transgendered community because they still face very real discrimination and violence for being who they are.

[Jenksismyhero]

She was not lying when she called herself a woman. She had the power to self-identify as a woman, and did so.

 

Saying she had these family connections, that she worked on the B-2, that she graduated from MIT were lies. Is she had explicitly denied having been Steven Krohl in the past, that would have been a lie (though a very understandable one in most contexts). Identifying herself as a woman was not a lie.

 

At best it's a half-truth. She lived her life as a man to the world for a period of time, even if she considered herself to be a woman internally. That's still a lie in my book in the context of fabricating her past. If you were going to go back and try to find her, as this reporter did, you wouldn't be able to, because the records are of her as a man, not a woman.

[Soxbadger]

It's not a simple issue, and I think it's wrong to dismiss any of the concerns of the transgendered community because they still face very real discrimination and violence for being who they are.

 

And thats fine, but just dont tell me saying Bernie Madoff is a jew in an article is anti-semitic. Sure Jews have faced real violence and discrimination, but that doesnt mean we cant state a fact about one. Which is whats going on here, its outrage for outrage sake.

 

You cant try and control the world this way.

[StrangeSox]

But isnt the article incomplete unless I look into both names? Isnt the only way I can actually verify if Dr V went to MIT is if I check the record for both Steven Krohl and Dr Vee?

 

How do I tell my audience that I actually did the research and appropriately vetted this?

 

What if he only looked into Dr Vee and wrote a piece and then Dr Vee sued Grantland for slander/defamation by proving Steven Krohl did go to MIT?

 

What exactly do we want here?

 

Hannan could have looked into all of that without 1) divulging it to the investor or 2) including the specifics (she used to be Steven Krohl). Like I said above, I think there is a dilemma there because vetting her claims is what led him to discover this, and then he did have to research who Krohl was in order to fully vet the claims. But the piece really went from "does this putter work, is the science valid?" to "this woman who invented this putter is actually a trans gendered person" and never actually resolved any of the questions about the putter itself.

[Jenksismyhero]

Identifying herself as E. Vanderbilt was not a lie. Her claimed credentials were a lie.

 

The other day I was watching something about Jeffery Dahmer, so I ended up on his wiki page. It said that his brother changed his name and lives in anonymity. Is he telling a "lie" if he goes by his new name? Would it be ethical for a reporter investigating a story unrelated to his brother but who discovered his original name to publish that information?

 

I understand that in this case, the reporter uncovered Dr. V's past identity while trying to trace down Dr. V's credentials (and failing to do so). I think there is an interesting dilemma here, because validating these claimed credentials really was a part of the story and getting the information to check under her former identity is part of the research that he did. It's not a simple issue, and I think it's wrong to dismiss any of the concerns of the transgendered community because they still face very real discrimination and violence for being who they are.

 

I think if he's actively going around telling people lies about his past, yes, anything someone finds in trying to verify that past is fair game.

[StrangeSox]

At best it's a half-truth. She lived her life as a man to the world for a period of time, even if she considered herself to be a woman internally. That's still a lie in my book in the context of fabricating her past. If you were going to go back and try to find her, as this reporter did, you wouldn't be able to, because the records are of her as a man, not a woman.

 

Where she worked and what degrees she had were fabrications she told other people. Not telling other people that she was trans is not a lie or a half-truth.

[Balta1701]

I think if he's actively going around telling people lies about his past, yes, anything someone finds in trying to verify that past is fair game.

So if someone asks where he's from in passing conversation, what should he do?

[Jenksismyhero]

Hannan could have looked into all of that without 1) divulging it to the investor or 2) including the specifics (she used to be Steven Krohl). Like I said above, I think there is a dilemma there because vetting her claims is what led him to discover this, and then he did have to research who Krohl was in order to fully vet the claims. But the piece really went from "does this putter work, is the science valid?" to "this woman who invented this putter is actually a trans gendered person" and never actually resolved any of the questions about the putter itself.

 

You're the second person to say this. I don't think the story was ever written to verify the science behind it and/or to ask if the putter worked. It was always "where did this putter come from and whats the story behind the person that created it." And the more he dug, the more twists and turns he encountered.

[Jenksismyhero]

So if someone asks where he's from in passing conversation, what should he do?

 

He can do whatever he wants to do. A reporter verifying his past should report what he finds.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I think if he's actively going around telling people lies about his past, yes, anything someone finds in trying to verify that past is fair game.

 

Even if the lies he's telling are completely irrelevant to who his brother was? I would be shocked if j-schools taught that as acceptable ethical standards.

[Soxbadger]

Hannan could have looked into all of that without 1) divulging it to the investor or 2) including the specifics (she used to be Steven Krohl). Like I said above, I think there is a dilemma there because vetting her claims is what led him to discover this, and then he did have to research who Krohl was in order to fully vet the claims. But the piece really went from "does this putter work, is the science valid?" to "this woman who invented this putter is actually a trans gendered person" and never actually resolved any of the questions about the putter itself.

 

 

I dont see how you can write a good article without saying who she was. Otherwise Dr. Vee could really be all the things she says she was. The way to disprove it is to say "From X-Y she was Steven Krohl and did none of those things." Otherwise the article is "From X-Y she was under a different name and didnt do those things", sure its equivalent, but if I read that, Id think its horrible journalism because Id want to be able to verify their claims, and the only way I could do independent verification would be to know the other names.

 

Now maybe wed have a slightly more interesting argument if the name was gender neutral she previously went as "Jamie Jones" and then the author had to ask "Do I say that Jamie Jones was a man".

 

And I thought the fact that it was all based on scam science answered the "does the putter work" question. Because really, its like asking "Do these shoes make me jump higher" and we all know, its not the shoes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Where she worked and what degrees she had were fabrications she told other people. Not telling other people that she was trans is not a lie or a half-truth.

 

Well, agree to disagree. I don't think someone can just change the past because of their gender issues. She lived a period of her life as a man. That's a fact. To claim in the same period of time that she was female is not telling the truth. It was all part of the fabricated back story that she created.