Dr. V's Magical Putter

[illinilaw08]

Its absolutely relevant because without proving her past identity I cant prove whether she is telling the truth or lying. If I ask "Are you Joe" and you say "no", and I never ask who you are, I have no evidence of your identity.

I dont care if she was a man, woman or whatever. That has nothing to do with the fact she claimed she had credentials which she didnt. And part of proving that is showing that at X time, she was doing Y.

 

Of the 3 things you list, I only think 3 is a valid concern.

 

As I said earlier, what if its shown that there is a high rate of suicide amongst Jewish people and they have historically been discriminated. Should we not say Bernie Madoff is a Jew? Or do we just report facts?

 

I get it, I have a lot of interaction with GLBT, but this isnt revealing information about some random person who never asked to be found. Sometimes you have to live with the consequences of your decisions.

 

Right. You can absolutely show that Vanderbilt did not have the credentials she said she did (when talking to the investor) without saying, "And get this! She used to be a dude!" You can say, "I've looked into Vanderbilt's credentials. I've searched her name; I've searched all aliases that she has provided or I have been able to find in the public record. She never worked at X. She never got degree Y. Based on my research, her credentials are false. I recommend that you confront her on that issue." She how I did that without saying, "She used to be a man!!"

 

And yeah, if I'm reading an article about Madoff, why is the fact that he is Jewish even remotely relevant? Why should that be a part of any article on Madoff unless it's a biography of the dude?

[Soxbadger]

Right. You can absolutely show that Vanderbilt did not have the credentials she said she did (when talking to the investor) without saying, "And get this! She used to be a dude!" You can say, "I've looked into Vanderbilt's credentials. I've searched her name; I've searched all aliases that she has provided or I have been able to find in the public record. She never worked at X. She never got degree Y. Based on my research, her credentials are false. I recommend that you confront her on that issue." She how I did that without saying, "She used to be a man!!"

 

And yeah, if I'm reading an article about Madoff, why is the fact that he is Jewish even remotely relevant? Why should that be a part of any article on Madoff unless it's a biography of the dude?

 

I dont think Ive commented about telling the investor. I dont think telling the investor was necessary or part of writing a factual article. Im talking about the article.

 

As for Madoff, the reason that its relevant is he used his connections in the Jewish community as a means to commit the fraud. Its a fact, its relevant, its part of the story of how Madoff was able to get away with it. Part of the story of who the victims were, etc.

 

Theres no reason to hide it, the same as there is no reason to hide that Dr Vee was once a man, its a fact, its part of the story. It is what it is.

[Jake]

This is why I keep going back to the whole thing being careless. Hannan and the entire editorial staff never bothered to mention what the circumstances were that led him to out her to the investor -- did he press him for more details, etc.? There were so many steps along the way where Hannan could have been up front about the fact he was entering tricky territory and somehow nobody ever made that kind of thing appear in the article.

[StrangeSox]

I dont think Ive commented about telling the investor. I dont think telling the investor was necessary or part of writing a factual article. Im talking about the article.

 

As for Madoff, the reason that its relevant is he used his connections in the Jewish community as a means to commit the fraud. Its a fact, its relevant, its part of the story of how Madoff was able to get away with it. Part of the story of who the victims were, etc.

 

Theres no reason to hide it, the same as there is no reason to hide that Dr Vee was once a man, its a fact, its part of the story. It is what it is.

 

It can depend on the manner that you portray these facts. If you're constantly talking about "the Jewish Financial Banker Bernie Madoff" and really seem to be focusing in on his being Jewish, well, there's an awful long line of antisemitism towards Jews and banking/money and you might want to rethink what you're saying or how you're saying it.

[Soxbadger]

It can depend on the manner that you portray these facts. If you're constantly talking about "the Jewish Financial Banker Bernie Madoff" and really seem to be focusing in on his being Jewish, well, there's an awful long line of antisemitism towards Jews and banking/money and you might want to rethink what you're saying or how you're saying it.

 

But no one would dare suggest that they should re-write the article to omit a fact.

 

Thats all Im saying here. Maybe the author could have been more tactful, maybe he could have focused less on it, but suggesting that he should have completely omitted it is something I cant agree with.

[Balta1701]

And yeah, if I'm reading an article about Madoff, why is the fact that he is Jewish even remotely relevant? Why should that be a part of any article on Madoff unless it's a biography of the dude?

With Mr. Madoff, he was actively using the fact that he was Jewish to reach out to Jewish communities to gain more investors in his ponzi scheme. The fact that he was Jewish was used as part of the confidence scam directly. The fact that he was jewish directly relates to why so many people trusted him, why they didn't do more homework, and why folks who lost money were involved in that scheme in the first place.

[Soxbadger]

With Mr. Madoff, he was actively using the fact that he was Jewish to reach out to Jewish communities to gain more investors in his ponzi scheme. The fact that he was Jewish was used as part of the confidence scam directly. The fact that he was jewish directly relates to why so many people trusted him, why they didn't do more homework, and why folks who lost money were involved in that scheme in the first place.

 

And that brings us to the ultimate question, was her scam in any way assisted by the fact she was a woman instead of a man?

 

I cant answer that question, but I also dont want the media to take away my ability to think about it.

[Balta1701]

And that brings us to the ultimate question, was her scam in any way assisted by the fact she was a woman instead of a man?

 

I cant answer that question, but I also dont want the media to take away my ability to think about it.

But if the author wanted to bring it up...he needed to be able to answer that quesiton with a yes. There is zero evidence in the article presented that it was the case.

 

The writer could, for example, have spelled out how the gender change helped her hide her identity from the investor, the only real victim discussed in the article. He did not do this and he also didn't ask questions along that line, the outing was done trivially and presented as such. (We also never learn many details of who this investor was, what the deal was, why we should trust him, what documents he has to back up his claims, and so forth).

[Soxbadger]

But if the author wanted to bring it up...he needed to be able to answer that quesiton with a yes. There is zero evidence in the article presented that it was the case.

 

So now the media cant present evidence and let the reader come to their own conclusion?

 

So I assume that there are no articles suggesting Barry Bonds was better with steroids unless the author was able to answer the question "yes" before he wrote it?

 

Come on Balta, freedom of the press is one of the most important things in America. Telling the truth is almost always okay.

[Balta1701]

So now the media cant present evidence and let the reader come to their own conclusion?

 

So I assume that there are no articles suggesting Barry Bonds was better with steroids unless the author was able to answer the question "yes" before he wrote it?

 

Come on Balta, freedom of the press is one of the most important things in America. Telling the truth is almost always okay.

The author presented zero evidence that it was relevant to his story except for the fact that it made finding the person's degrees harder, but the author himself acknowledges that people change their names and that would do the exact same thing. And yet, the discovery that she hadn't just changed her name was basically the entire thrust of the article.

[Soxbadger]

The author presented zero evidence that it was relevant to his story except for the fact that it made finding the person's degrees harder, but the author himself acknowledges that people change their names and that would do the exact same thing. And yet, the discovery that she hadn't just changed her name was basically the entire thrust of the article.

 

So your mad that he wrote an article in a way that you dont like?

 

Thats nothing new, I bet over 50% of articles are written in a way I dont respect in order to sensationalize and make money.

 

Im still not seeing what the issue is. Well besides for the, transgender should be treated with kid gloves because we now treat "others" with kid gloves because we dont want the truth to make them do something bad.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

Krohl/Vanderbilt previously attempted suicide, no? There are many different reasons she could have committed suicide, among them being outed as a man, being outed as a fraud, depression. We are putting the blame on Hannan, but ultimately Krohl/Vanderbilt took her own life. Hannan may have played a part but he didn't do this to push this person over the edge.

[cabiness42]

So your mad that he wrote an article in a way that you dont like?

 

Thats nothing new, I bet over 50% of articles are written in a way I dont respect in order to sensationalize and make money.

 

Im still not seeing what the issue is. Well besides for the, transgender should be treated with kid gloves because we now treat "others" with kid gloves because we dont want the truth to make them do something bad.

 

Yeah, if somebody breaks into my house, I'm shooting the motherf***er and I'm not waiting to ask if they need special treatment due to being gay, bisexual, or transgender.

[StrangeSox]

Wtf

[BigSqwert]

[iamshack]

Well, I'm just going to say it...I think the fact that she was transgender is absolutely relevant to the story. I think it helped hide her real identity, I think it emboldened her to make crazy s*** up, and I think if you want to use your past credentials/history/expertise to legitimize a product you are taking to market, you've got to be prepared for someone to discover that you are transgender.

 

If you aren't prepared for that, you shouldn't make up crazy lies to sell a product. When you do so, you lose the right to "pick and choose" what lies an author might divulge and which he might leave out.

 

 

[zenryan]

if youre so scared about your history being outed in a public forum, then you better not be a liar and have credibility issues while trying to be a public figure.

 

 

[Jake]

Krohl/Vanderbilt previously attempted suicide, no? There are many different reasons she could have committed suicide, among them being outed as a man, being outed as a fraud, depression. We are putting the blame on Hannan, but ultimately Krohl/Vanderbilt took her own life. Hannan may have played a part but he didn't do this to push this person over the edge.

 

Not too many people are arguing that this fiasco caused her to commit suicide -- there was quite a bit of lag between Hannan's last convo with her and her suicide IIRC. Either way, it is always a very complicated thing and in this case, we know that she had been suicidal before. Like you said, who knows why, though I bet her difficulty with her gender identity didn't help. I wouldn't want to try to draw a straight line between the threat of this article and her death. It isn't clear that he/Grantland was willing to publish it if she were alive.

[Jake]

Most of the argument is about his journalistic integrity. It isn't that people can't or wouldn't find out, but whether this article was exploitative or unnecessarily harmful. I enjoyed reading it, but it became much more about her transgender status than it needed to be to be a good article or lay out the facts.

[iamshack]

Most of the argument is about his journalistic integrity. It isn't that people can't or wouldn't find out, but whether this article was exploitative or unnecessarily harmful. I enjoyed reading it, but it became much more about her transgender status than it needed to be to be a good article or lay out the facts.

Your story seems to have changed over the last few days, Jake.

 

Seems to me like you've jumped on the same bandwagon as many others after the first folks started to criticize the author.

[Kyyle23]

Not too many people are arguing that this fiasco caused her to commit suicide -- there was quite a bit of lag between Hannan's last convo with her and her suicide IIRC. Either way, it is always a very complicated thing and in this case, we know that she had been suicidal before. Like you said, who knows why, though I bet her difficulty with her gender identity didn't help. I wouldn't want to try to draw a straight line between the threat of this article and her death. It isn't clear that he/Grantland was willing to publish it if she were alive.

 

It's not a straight line, but there is a line

 

"Oh no, a reporter is going to reveal that I'm transgendered. Oh look, a plastic bag."

 

 

I didn't notice this thread on Soxtalk until now - and yes, reading the lengthly article, it seemed, to me, that she made one last plea for the writer to come see her proof and then squash the story, and he said hell no and she killed herself.

 

 

[Jake]

Your story seems to have changed over the last few days, Jake.

 

Seems to me like you've jumped on the same bandwagon as many others after the first folks started to criticize the author.

 

I'm still fond of the article because it was such a fascinating story, but I do see how it is problematic. I think much of it comes from editorial carelessness. I try to give Hannan credit that he wasn't reveling in her transgendered-ness, but I do understand why people might feel that way. I've been frustrated with the notion that she "deserved" to be outed because that is just another thing. I felt okay about this, mostly, because she happens to be dead.

 

Mostly, after re-reading the article, I can see how I read over troubling parts without alarms going off because I assumed benign intent on the part of the author. Now that I've heard many of the criticisms, I can see how it is actually quite difficult to argue against them beyond "well I think this is what he meant."