The Caleb Hannan story to which I pointed you yesterday has created a blogospheric firestorm, which I frankly didn't see coming and am having difficulties assessing.
First, a bit of unseemly chest thumping... this is the first story I've gotten posted before Shackelford, so I've got that going for me. He's got thousands of readers, the Golf Digest affiliation, an actual career in golf and a fine reputation built up over many years of toil. By way of comparison, I've got Maggot (real name).
Shackelford devotes a long, link filled post to the story, and let's just say that he's not a fan. I encourage you to read his thoughts, as well as the items to which he links. Let me just make an obvious point that in creating a golf blog we are not signing on to deal with matters of life and death, nor matters of journalistic integrity. I am reminded of Jim McKay, the longtime ABC broadcaster, who was suddenly forced on a live broadcast to deal with the Palestinian terrorist attack against Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, which his basic decency allowed him to handle with the utmost grace and compassion. Forgive me the hubris of that comparison, I only mean to make clear that I understand that I'm completely out of my depth here.
The gist of the criticism seems to be that the reporter's probing may have led Dr. Vanderbilt to take her life, as per this excerpt from Shack:
How did none of these people think to say, my gosh, we might have driven this woman to take her life, we need to preface this story by suggesting our sheer horror at the slightest possibility this is how things played out and if we played any role, we're so, so sorry? Oh no, they were "blown away." Fifteen to 20 people edited this and not one thought, what do we gain by pursuing the story and three months after her suicide, what do we gain by running it?
And Geoff's conclusion is quite clear:
The entire episode seems recklessly unfair to one person, Essay Anne Vanderbilt, aka Dr. V.
I love Geoff's work and agree with him on most golf-related issues, but I find myself involuntarily shaking my head as I read his post. I should also share one more excerpt that Shack relies on from the Grantland editor's post-publication explanation/mea culpa:
Caleb’s biggest mistake? Outing Dr. V to one of her investors while she was still alive. I don’t think he understood the moral consequences of that decision, and frankly, neither did anyone working for Grantland. That misstep never occurred to me until I discussed it with Christina Kahrl yesterday. But that speaks to our collective ignorance about the issues facing the transgender community in general, as well as our biggest mistake: not educating ourselves on that front before seriously considering whether to run the piece.
At the risk of unfairly summarizing the criticism, it seems that Grantland, its editors and the writer are being held to account principally for:
- Publishing the story three months after her tragic suicide;
- Badgering her, including outing her to an investor, which may have caused her to take her own life;
- It was just about a damn putter.
I simply fail to see the damage for No. 1 above, but I'm happy to hear from anyone that sees it differently.
No. 2 is obviously more complicated, so let's try to logically unpack it. The first issue is whether there was an agreement to protect her personal confidentiality, which Hannan disputes. But even if there was, is that binding on Hannan after discovery that she lied to him about, well, everything?
More importantly, he's found himself in the middle of a consumer and investor fraud. The investor cited gave her $60,000 based upon her representation of her expertise and qualifications, all of which was fabricated from thin air. This is outright fraud and likely criminal, and the reporter was under no obligation to protect her con game. In fact, I would argue that he owed it to the investor to share this information, as Yar could well have been looking to raise additional capital.
Should her personal secret have been off-limits to Hannan in his conversation with the investor? That's an arguable point, though I'm not inclined to second guess from the written account. I could understand that he felt obligated to share all that he discovered, though he also undoubtedly was a bit over-invested emotionally in the story. I'd go to the barricades to protect people's rights to maintain spheres of privacy in their lives, but I feel equally strongly that that sphere of privacy shouldn't be used to protect a scam.
And by the way, does anybody but me wonder how long the victim list is? If enterprising reporters dug into her sordid life, don't we think we'd find a trail of burned bridges and other financial and personal victims.
The third item shows up in a number of the critical pieces, and I think is a particularly offensive piece of passive-aggressive logic, meant to dismiss other viewpoints without actually, you know, making the case. The art of the con is in identifying the weakness and vulnerabilities in the mark, hence the use of top secret security clearances and scientific mumbo jumbo. The con always has to be about something, so this was just about a putter in the same sense that Bernie Madoff was just about investments.
Lastly, I didn't find the piece especially well written. It was way too long and Hannan, as many have noted, was far too big a factor in the story. I find it ironic that the editors are being roundly criticized for publishing the piece, when I think they were more culpable for not adequately editing the piece.
It's a tragic story that I'm sure all regret the outcome of and their part in, but we don't get a mulligan. But to conclude that this was unfair to Dr. Vanderbilt seems way off the mark, as she didn't treat others in a manner deserving of much fairness.
No comments:
Post a Comment