Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posting this woman's personal information could put her life at risk. You would feel pretty stupid if something were to happen to her. Not a good idea.
Fat Guy: Did this bimbo actually put her own details on the web? And then didn't she seek the publicity to draw attention to herself including national tv interviews? And unlike the bimbo did there was privacy agreement violated here. The "writer" said she is glad she did it. If she regretted it I might side with you. But she bragged about violating the privacy of someone else. It seems she got precisely the same thing she dished out but it was more justified in her case.
Someone once said: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The bimbo did unto others and showed the world precisely how she wanted to be done unto.
By the way. If the unethical, dishonest Ms. Caldwell publicly apologizes to the girl she went after, if she acknowledges that she acted unethically (instead of bragging about it and basking in the spotlight because of it) then I will be happy to remove the public information about her.
Giuliani (the daughter) tried to remain private. Caldwell did not. She wants the publicity. The consequences of her own actions are entirely on her head. If she didn't violate her Facebook agreement, didn't violate the privacy of Giuliani, and then didn't brag about it publicly and tell everyone how happy she was to do it -- well then I would have never paid any attention to her.
Unlike her I did use public information which she posted on the net. I did not violate a privacy agreement to do it. Where Giuliani tried to remain anonymous, Caldwell lapped up the publicity like a thirsty dog.
I fail to see how reading a Facebook profile is violation of privacy. No matter how much people had access to it, it is called *public profile*. She had her picture on it and I don't think there's much difference from Rose G to Rose Giuliani. She obviously intended for people to find her profile on Facebook, just not the media.
Unfortunately, she's daughter of a politician, sometimes called a "public person", and have learned to deal with that the hard way.
Someone: Actually the violation was of the privacy policy that Caldwell agreed to on Facebook which is why they threw her off for her disregard to the policy. You don't know what Ms Giuliani intended unless she told you. We do know she went to lengths to stay private. Her first name is not Rose and there is a big difference between G and Giuliani -- especially if you think how many names starting with G could be there. One intitial is not similar. She is a minor and hasavoided being public about this.
Caldwell is not a minor and sought to be public.
One thing I don't get. Why is .... Giuliani constantly referred to as a 17 year old? When I google her I discover her birthdate is July 22, 1989, which makes her 18 and an adult. At least it does if 2007 minus 1989 still equals 18.
I've really come to expect this kind of attitude and behavior from Harvard students.
She will become successful and even more powerful for this. She is in the elite and choose to steal just a little bit more power to further her self. She is a real 'go getter' that will go places.
It seems to take a few years bit all Harvard students are better then you by the time they graduate.
I find it hysterical that the same reporters you bitch and moan about make your writing even possible. You could not bloviate so ridiculously if it weren't for reporters. OK, so sometimes some go overboard. The vast majority DO NOT. They are reading obscure government tracts, attending all sorts of boring meetings, going up to complete strangers, etc. ad infinitum in order to bring you some news. And all you can do is take one example and paint them all as unethical gossip artists, or some such nonsense. Put it in perspective. Watch a TV news show tonight or pick up a newspaper and tell me how many stories you watch or read that reveal the kind of parasitic nonsense you refer to in calling reporters "bastards" and "pirahnas." Get a life. The reason people do not take many bloggers seriously is because they do not undertake to be serious reporters and find things out. They just spin off bullshit commentaries like this. In fact not a day goes by that I don't see some new list of "what to write about when you run out of blog ideas." What a load of crap. How about getting up off your fat butt and going out and doing some reporting?
Caldwell seems something of a narcissist. Even the TV intervew she kept bringing back to herself. And she puts all sorts of personal information out on line. She tells us that she interviewed for a job with a magazine and that the interviewers were a “cute woman and a cuter man” But she didn’t take the job because her instincts are so finely tuned she knew there was something wrong and she saw the publication and now dislikes proving how right she is.
Elsewhere she tells us she is from Arizona and that her mother “is literally the first number in my cell phone” and that she can’t go without talking to mom five or six times a day and needs her advice about absolutely everything from term papers to a broken nail. We know her “exfling” and along with “several former flings” streaked by her naked while she was arm in arm with her current boyfriend. (She makes it sound as if she really gets around). And she says she stared at the naked men and that one’s body is a lot nicer today. But elsewhere she pontificates on morality and premarital sex -- something she strongly implies she has done several times.
We also know she wrote a hit piece on charities where she got the facts all wrong. She claimed the March of Dimes only spent 18 percent on the actual cause when in reality it was 75%. She got the facts wrong repeatedly. And she is very upfront that she is a hard right conservative.
One gets the impression her goal in life is to be a cross between “Legally Blond” and Ann Coulter. Certainly if Caldwell doesn’t want personal information about her out there she should stop putting it out. She seems to be the source of most of it. And she should respect the privacy of others.
"I do not believe it is right, nor do I encourage, anyone to threaten or intimidate Ms. Caldwell.... I do believe you have the right to protest Caldwell's unscrupulous actions and to ask her questions just as she asked this girl questions."
Right, because people couldn't protest her actions or ask her questions without her personal contact information. What questions do you seriously think people will ask if they decide to call her, or visit her at her residence? That's a bad-faith argument if ever I've read one. You're full of crap if you think people won't use this as an opportunity to harass Lucy Morrow Caldwell, and all your sanctimony over the 'media inquisition' of Rose Giuliani is some two-faced bullshit.
Doesn't the writer of this post also qualify as a "media whore" since they are obviously trying to benefit from this 18 year old's facebook page and the media controversy surrounding it? I see numerous ads on this page. Page views = money, so who is the true whore here?
Calling Ms. Caldwell a "stereotypical blonde" and a "bubble head" is not exactly the comments of a respectable journalist, either.
Seriously, get off your high horse and write about something that really matters. I almost expect Lindsay Lohan to be the next blog topic.
Get over yourself
Joey: First, the ads on the page today are for nonprofits (though they vary around the world). Second the total income is extremely low. And since the ads today seem nonprofit the total income is zero -- I just doublechecked myself. So much for the get rich theory you espouse. And even on good days it amounts to $2 to $3. Hardly sufficient to sell my soul to Satan, I would think.
Second, this is a blog not a newspaper. It is a personal opinion blog not a journalistic site. Most people can tell the difference. I'm sorry you can't.
Third, because it is a blog it is about what topics I find interesting. You think it unworth, fine, but it broght you here didn't it?
Yeah, your entire bitch and moan fest is laughable. This is a non-story. Privacy violation? Hmmm...let's see who was allowed to view her profile on facebook:
*Anyone who went to her high school
*Anyone she approved as a friend
*Anyone who attends or attended Harvard
*Anyone that belongs to the Obama group she joined.
That's a lot of people. If 2-3 people have access to it, its easy to call it private. If THOUSANDS of people can see it, its a lot harder to call it private. It might have been a media public statement, but if she didn't want people know she supported Obama, she should've kept those thoughts in a diary under her bed.
Caldwell, a Harvard Alum, who could see her profile, asked her a question, and stated she was acting as an agent of the media. She didn't comment. This isn't a privacy violation. Facebook is not a college student's private space. We don't know if she joined as a joke or because she doesn't support her father (likely, since he's a very distant father who divorced her mother to marry a younger woman.) but the point is that it says something about the man's character when even your own family consider (as a joke, if anything) supporting the other guy.
It its a “non story” then why are you commenting on it? Odd behaviour for someone who thinks it a non story.
Actually Facebook thinks it is a privacy violation. That is why they threw the bimbo off their network. She violated her terms of agreement -- obviously her word is meaningless. Also she didn’t say she support Obama, you are assuming that Caldwell, (or has been known to write false information in the past) got the story right. This girl only joined the group. I know people who are members of several groups just to see what is being said and going on.
Caldwell is not a alumni she is a current student. She also copied the girls who page and posted it on another network. That is also a violation of her agreement with Facebook. And while I don’t have any support for Giuliani, the candidate, it is disgusting when anti-Giuliani people such as yourself and Caldwell use the daughter to slam the father. She is an innocent victim of the viciousness of US politics.
I can't you believe you made fun of her for having a lisp. You're just as pathetic as she is.
Don't be naive. Facebook postings are NOT private material, regardless of what anyone says. And the first responder is correct...two wrongs don't make a right. They make you an asshole.
Stereotypical blond, bimbo, lisped her way through an interview are all personal attacks and demean your point - which I think is valid.
Scraping together bits of information, spackling the huge gaps in with speculation, and shaping the whole mess into something that supports one's agenda shouldn't pass as journalism. Caldwell should be held accountable for presenting wild presumptions as fact.
Traditionally journalists and the agencies they work for have the honorable duty of being vigilant and keeping checks on government, public, and private organizations by bringing attention to wrong-doings. Unfortunately these modern news outlets themselves need their own watchdogs, so kudos to CLS for trying to hold Caldwell up to the journalistic standard.
Your equation is flawed. Inciting millions (okay, thousands) to call and email a reporter is not the same volume of intrusion as one email from a reporter to their article subject.
Just reporting "G's daughter joined facebook group supporting Obama's election" would have been fine by me. I agree that the article was unethically sexed up beyond that, and that perhaps the use of some of the images/text may not be "fair use".
Bimbo? Media whore? Dumb blond? Your attacks, regardless of whether or not they are justified, are blatently sexualized, sexist and hateful. That goes for the author of this piece and the respondents. Who the hell cares whether or how many times this woman has had sex, or ever checked out a man? Have you ever had sex? have you ever looked at a woman? Seriously. You people make me sick. How many centuries will have to pass before you realize that this behavior is not acceptable? Would you ever think twice about the sex life of a male journalist? Think about it. Would you even call him a whore? And if the journalist were black, would you say he "behaved like a stereotypical lazy black guy?" Would that be acceptable? Your description of this woman gives you away for what you are, a sexist and a woman hater, despite your paternalistic and somewhat pornagraphic repetition of "underage girl,"in regards to Ms. Guliani, who is in fact 18. I don't see what her legal status in a porn video or a statutory rape case has to do with any of this. Additionally, your release of Ms. Cladwell's personal information is an outright attack, and, by your logic, means that any one of is is justified in releasing YOUR personal information. You may want to reconsider your motives.
Anonymous: Your equation is flawed. Caldwell didn't just subject this girl to one question. She subjected her to public scrutiny which included hundreds or journalists writing about her and no doubt trying to contact her. In a media feeding frenzy, like the one Caldwell artificially and dishonestly created, things don't stop with the one journalist with but hundreds, if not thousands of them.
In addition Ms. Giuliani herself is not a public figure and not fair game. And Caldwell distorted and lied and violated the privacy agreement she consented to in order to do it. And then she went national bragging about what she did. She gets no sympathy from me. What she did was vile.
Caldwell knew that what she was doing would create lots of media interest in this girl. She shopped intentionally flogged her "story" to a major on line magazine to maximize the impact and her publicity and the difficulty that would be imposed on Ms. Giuliani. I just don't get the people who think it is wrong to give Caldwell a taste of her own medicine. If she doesn't like it she shouldn't dish it on innocent people. And Caldwell, by the way, is not innocent as she created the hoopla to promote herself at the expense of this girl. That's disgusting. And she deserves to be held accountable. Journalistic ethics, being what they are today, won't do it. So the court of public opinion is all that is left.
I agree with you about Rudy, but unfortunately he WILL be the next president. Look at the recent track record of the American ruling class. The candidate that they want is the candidate that gets "elected". And there is nothing you nor I can do about it. It's really quite scary, isn't it?
@Mary - "Bimbo? Media whore? Dumb blond? " How are these sexualized and sexist? Certainly being dumb blonde isn't sexual or sexist (unless your argument implicitly assumes only women can be both dumb and blonde). The attack "Media whore" can be equally applied to either sex, and isn't referring to the personal behavior of the student. The only attack with a connotation of being an overly sexual female is the word "bimbo."
That the author refers to the girl as an underaged child, I believe, is to liken the original journalist to an online predator; a somewhat apt comparison. If it seems pornographic to you, this could be the reason.
Frankly, I believe you are posting with a not-so-hidden agenda, superficially acting as a proponent for equality, but only as a cheap facade as you impose a neo-fascist feminism upon any who would criticize a womyn. You may want to reconsider your motives.
"Trust me, this is the stereotypical blond."
WTF is wrong with you? You should know better than to spread terrible stereotypes.
Wow, you are right. That girl is dumber than a box of rocks. Oopsh, I mean rocksh!
How are these sexualized and sexist?
'Bimbo', 'whore' and 'dumb blonde' are all predominantly used to describe women and are defined as such in most dictionaries (check dictionary.com e.g.), even though they may not be specifically defined as such in your own personal non-femi-neo-fasc-ized dictionary. Congratulations, Joe. You win the 110% Bonafied Sexist Moron Of The Day Award. Champagne all around!
The term joe used was "media whore"...
From Dictionary.com: There are no dictionary entries for media whore, but media, whore are spelled correctly. Web Results for: media whore. Facts are always more reliable when you make them up Urs. Especially when you endorse them with your own seal of approval.
Mary: I said she was acting like the stereotypical dumb blond and yes, she is a bimbo. There are men who are total bimbos too. Get used to it. She was wrapped up only in herself and what this story meant for here. She was the one bragging how she “hit it big” with this. Selfish, self-centered, bimbo. That is accurate and it stays. Second the previous commenter only referred to the things this woman said about herself while preaching sexual morality elsewhere, the point, I think, is she is hypocritical. The major media reports that Ms. Giuliani is 17, one other person said otherwise. And exactly why is it that defending Ms. Giuliani from this sort of unwarranted attack is sexist?
Joe: You are right. Media whore refers to someone who whores after the media for attention. It is not about their sex life, obviously. Nor is indicative of their gender. This woman was a media whore lapping up the attention at the expense of poor Ms. Giuliani. I think Mary is obsessed as underage refers to the legal status which defines accountability in many ways not just sex.
And I happen to have known a lot of men who said they “whore around” to describe their sex life. Obviously they must have thought they were women. I can also think of several men I’ve known who were called bimbos by lots of other people -- because they were. In fact the term comes from the Italian for baby. And while the dictionary says it can mean “a woman regarded as vacuous” it also defines it as “a vacuous person” leaving out gender.
I personally don’t think that blonds are inherently dumb. In reality my hair, especially when I was younger, was rather blondish (my Swedish background). I intentionally put the word stereotypical in the sentence because that is what she was being a “stereotypical blond”. I have some gay friends who are “stereotypical gay” but most aren’t. To modify it with stereotypical is to say you acknowledge it is a stereotype therefore not applicable to the entire group but that the person in question is acting that way. That is Caldwell to a T.
This is funny: Now the test doesn't mean a lot but there is a site called blogthings.com which has a "are you a feminist" test. Based on questions they rate how feminist you are. Now Mary thinks I'm sexist, etc. The test I took, based on various issues, many of which I've articulate here, said I'm "98% feminist" who thinks men and women should be treated equally. Yep. So, I don't have a problem seeing men and women as bimbos or as "media whores". It strikes me that Mary is the sexist assuming it can only mean women.
One semiobscene and semithreateng post has been removed above.
urs - you spelled "blogospheres" wrong... for that I give you the Ugly bimbo's poor spelling award.
CLS,
It's surprising to see you get something like this so incredibly bass-ackwards wrong.
Miss Giuliani made her preferences known in what is arguably a public forum. Unless she is severely mentally retarded, she could not have helped knowing that as the child of a candidate for the presidency of the United States, she was likely to have those preferences noted.
There may be issues with the reporter's use of Facebook screen shots, etc. -- but Rudy Giuliani's daughter publicly indicating a preference for another candidate (and however coquettish, that indication was, indeed, public) is news. It ceased being a matter of privacy the instant she intentionally made it public.
So you feel you have to give this girl a
lesson ?
She is 18. Consider researching your topic before posting. Your entire argument hinges on her age.
Anonymous: You missed the reference. I'm sorry that you're not cool enough to get it. Also, nice touch with the referring in a misogynist fashion to photos of people who aren't me. Your powers of deduction stagger the mind.
Andy: Yeah, I completely moved the goalposts by going with the terms that are actually listed in dictionaries. How sneaky of me. I must be entirely wrong about everything ever.
It's a shame that people think this is a way to make a "name" for themselves in the industry - and even more so that it is actually a way to do so...
Way to completely over generalize all around. And, by the way, there are hundreds of thousands of journalists out there, most of whom are ethical, responsible people who have lines they will not cross.
This reporter crossed a line that I would not (yes, I'm a journalist at a small town paper).
That being said, people should know that *anything* you put on the Web is fair game. My myspace page, my facebook entry, my comments here. I may mark it private, but it's out there. If I put something in writing, it's bound to be read. Even a teen should know that and this is a serious lesson learned for her. I've known employees who've lost jobs over blogs and interns who didn't get hired because of Facebook. Writing something has consequences and she certainly knows that now.
Thomas: Ms. Giuliani expressed no preference, she only joined a non-dues paying, social group. I have been a member of numerous groups without endorsing them. And some journalists friends of mine intentionally joined groups they didn’t support just to see what they were doing. Unless and until Ms.Giuliani states what she intended it all speculation. Second, I don’t care who her father is, she didn’t have a choice in the matter and it is wrong to drag her into a public forum where she clearly has no wish to be.
Again you are buying what Caldwell invented not the facts we have. All we have is that Ms. Giuliani was listed with the group. And since she didn’t use her last name and since the site was limited to school mates, and since she had the Facebook policy of privacy in the use of other people’s pages there are numerous reasons to think that she would be left alone. In addition this site was most certainly created when she was 17 and 17 year olds are not necessarily clear thinkers. I think it was very, very wrong for this Caldwell character to do this for her aggrandizement.
AlbertEintstein (Not). My entire argument does not hinge entirely or even primarily on the girls age. She is an innocent bystander not responsible for her father or his choice in careers. It is wrong to drag her into this even if she was 40 years old.
Ms. Giuliani didn’t deserve to be dragged out into the public square. She didn’t do anything criminal. She didn’t choose to go public but attempted to keep things out of the spotlight. She didn’t hurt anyone or attempt to. It really disgusts that this Coulter wannabe was willing to use another human being just to further her career (as she put it “hit it big”).
An eye for an eye isn't always the smartest thing.
Yeah, i think anytime you put your personal information on the internet, regardless of what restrictions you have set on who can and cannot view your profile, you need to understand, if you dont already, that the internet is not a very private place, and expecting information to stay private when posted on a site like facebook, well that just plain dumb. If she didnt want people to know she wouldnt have posted the information in the first place.
Is this is surprising in any way?
No. This is typical behavior for journalists.
To give an example about how I feel about the state of journalism and the behavior of journalists, when my daughter was thinking about her major for college I told her that I would support her in any endeavor she chose except one possibility; if she chose journalism she was on her own.
Unfortunately, the majority of the populace doesn't share my opinion of journalism and believes most of what they read because it is easier than thinking for themselves, much less finding out the facts for themselves.
"whore", "bimbo", "typical blond", "whore", "bimbo".
Your words. Meant to insult and demean a "bad female", not a "bad reporter". Now that people called you on them, you're making excuses.
"This media whore reads a page mentioning the girl is a member of the group."
No, sounds like you're calling her a whore, a whore who happens to work in the media. The term "media whores", when used generically are referring to nameless faceless GROUPS of people. The way you used it describing one individual female is obviously sexist.
Lots of male reporters do equally unethical things, do you call them out?
No?
Why not?
You're a sexist ass, that's why not. Didn't your mommy love you enough?
WoW. The underage girl had her 'Face Book' semi-private. Making it only available to specific members of classmates. YES! The is an invasion of privacy, intrusion upon personal information, and defamation of character because things were taken out-of-context'... A lawsuit needs to be considered for several reasons. Face Book need to sue because she violated their web site standards placing the girls personal information public. Face Book also may have mis lead the 'underage' girl in false security and can not sign contracts with under age individuals. (at least not here in the 'Great State of California'...)
wow cls, could we get a little more sensitive?
@ Mariah
Why no last name? What small town newspaper? What's up with the secrecy? There is no privacy here. This is a public forum, right?
And as for the hundreds of thousand of "ethical" and "responsible" journalists out there the their uncrossable lines, there really isn't any comfort for most of us who don't share their ethics or agree with what they feel is responsible. And what about this woman? Did she cross a line that you wouldn't cross? Or are you OK with this? Does her web page have ANYTHING to do with her father's presidency? At least wait to find out whether or not she is the daughter of a president before you write your story about how unattractive, or awkward or drunk she might be. Then it will carry some real weight and should get you a couple extra lines of print.
calm down spaz. i'm talking to the freak who wrote this blog entry.
This is an immature response, giving credence to the argument against blogging as a reputable medium.
Private? Come on. There are settings on Facebook where you can stop anyone who isn't your friend from being able to view your profile. She did not have those activated, so anyone and everyone who joined the group she was a member of could view her profile. That is not an attempt to stay private, and it is not a breach of privacy to view her profile. She made her information public. I have no love of the media or politicians myself, but it's the young girls' own fault. Perhaps people need to be a bit more careful about what they think of as private and public on the internet.
This chick goes to Harvard?
It is said that not all journalists are unethical. I just note that while many of them wouldn’t have printed the story originally that paper and paper and news sites after news site repeated it. That indicates pretty widespread disregard for the life of an innocent person who can’t be held responsible for her father.
In particular if someone is not trying to be in the public light, as Ms Giuliani clearly was doing, she is not fair game for a reporter no matter how inexperienced or self-serving.
Alica quotes things I didn’t say or takes them out of context. I never said “typical blond” I said Caldwell was acting like a “stereotypical blond” which is a completely different meaning. In addition Alicia distorts the phrase “media whore” which refers to someone who basks in the glory of the media and changes it to just “whore”. This misquoting is mean to prove I’m a terrible sexist. And if a male student journalist I would call them to task on it as well.
In fact when I was a copy editor at a university daily newspaper during my school days I did precisely that all the time. And most the people crticized in this blog have been men. But Alicia, who no doubt has read all of one essay on this blog, announces that I wouldn’t call out male journalists (which I have done here) and says the reason I wouldn’t is that I’m a “sexist ass”. Well, leave my ass out of it. That’s sexual harassment! Now I have to go cry and feel oppressed.
What Caldwell did was awful. Her victim was a female. What sort of demented logic turns my fury at what was done to this innocent woman in sexism? No doubt my expression of concern for a gay man caught in the psychological trauma of the Republican closet (the current post on the blog) is the result of being anti-gay. I just don’t get the logic of some radical feminists who shout “sexism” or “oppression” at the drop of a hat.
And whether Ms. Giuliani should have been more carefulis not in quesiton. She should have. But that doesn’t mean what Caldwell did wasn’t unethical and that it was wrong for the media in general to run with the story. If I were the editor I would have killed the story the moment I saw it especially if the focus of the story refused to confirm what it meant. At the very least it shouldn’t have said anything more than that she had joined the group and that no one knew if this meant she planned to vote for Obama. Caldwell did more than violate this girls privacy, she distorted the facts. She has a history of that I read.
I wonder if what she has done is actionable in the Harvard community? From the Harvard College Student Handbook http://webdocs.registrar.fas.har...ndbook/current/
(emphasis mine):
"Honesty
The College expects that all students will be honest and forthcoming in their dealings with the members of this community. Further, the College expects that students will answer truthfully questions put to them by a properly identified officer of the University. Failure to do so ordinarily will result in disciplinary action, including but not limited to requirement to withdraw from the College.
All students are required to respect private and public ownership; instances of theft, misappropriation, or unauthorized use of or damage to property or materials not one's own will ordinarily result in disciplinary action, including requirement to withdraw from the College."
Someone wrote that the entire thesis of this post rests on the Giuliani girl being under 18. Maybe they read a different post. This one said: "And, by the way, I think it would have been sleazy to do this to the girl even if she were a legal adult in light of her efforts to obtain her privacy."
If the author says it not resting on her age, right in the article, then precisely why does someone pretend that is what it rests on?
I think the offer made on the blog is fair. If Caldwell apologizes for what she did and acknowledges it was wrong that the blog will remove what they said about her.
If the media were ethical this would have earned Caldwell a smack down. She claims she had the right to post information about the Guiliani girl. If so then people have the right to post information about her. And she, unlike Giuliani obviously wanted the publicty. Giuliani refused interviews and this girl was thrilled about the attention. How can Caldwell demand privacy which she wouldn’t allow this other girl.
Giuliani didn’t pick her father and its wrong to force any conflict into the press. The kids of candidates shouldn’t be targets simply by accident of birth. Caldwell did something that put herself in the spotlight so she can’t complain. Giuliani didn’t. And if someone did this to someone I knew, I’d use a lot stronger language than “bimbo”. It is shocking that some people are upset about “bimbo” but seem to have no problem with targeting an innocent girl because of her father.
Instead of people worrying about poor Caldwell shouldn't they consider the woman she unfairly targeted? Caldwell wants the attention, she went out to get it. This other girl wanted to be left alone and Caldwell wouldn't respect that. Think about the real victim in this incident -- the girl who was pushed into the international press against her will by a self-serving amateur.
It's like a cop finding a rapist who just attacked someone. Maybe he ought not punch the guy in the mouth but you can sure understand why he did it. And Caldwell dragged this girl into the media unfairly. You might not like that she got smacked for doing it but you sure can understand why.
It's people like her who work in the mainstream media that drags down the whole system's credibility. Is it so hard to weigh someone's privacy, especially of a minor, against a quick buck and popularity?
Regarding the Giuliani Facebook page that Caldwell copied. Slate may have blurred some personal information, including the actual name being used on the blog but other media outlets did not.Some, including the one that Caldwell appeared on, did not blurr things. Caldwell is the most likely source for that image. She no doubt took a screen capture and distributed to anyone who asked her for it. In addition there were some things listed about the girls, shall we say, love life that were implied on her Facebook page. And that information was on the Slate site for anyone to read.
Caldwell didn't take precautions like some think. She distributed some personal information. Since she took no precautions and claimed a right to use the Facebook material then things she posts on line about herself can't be considered private.
And since Caldwell tells people where she goes to school and includes her name, address, phone number and email on a public Harvard page so anyone can find her, she ought to know that making yourself a national character will mean people will find that information -- especially since she, unlike Giuliani, made no effort to hide it.
If you put her name into the title of the blog post, this page will be higher in Google when searching for "Lucy Morrow Caldwell".
Thanks so much for doing this.
When this story broke a few nights ago, I phased in and out between states of extreme anger and disbelief. It's just so disheartening to know that some people consider things like that legitimate 'journalism' and it makes me feel a little better that there are others willing to call out this bullshit.
SEO Ranter: That might be true but the main goal was not that. I was furious at was done to a girl who shouldn't have been dragged into this and I had to get it off my chest. And the more I read about the case the more angry I got and then to see Caldwell gloating and laughing on television about what she did and implying that this was her big break just indicated that she didn't care what she did to someone else just so long as she benefitted from it.
That was when I really got mad. No one should be dragged through a media circus like that unless they have committed a crime. And to do it to give some amateur wannabe her break in the media is just appalling.
I keep looking at what Caldwell did and I can't come to any conclusion but "It just isn't right."
If the Giuliani girl wanted, or sought out publicity, then fine. Go to it. But she didn't and she shouldn't have been used like that. I can't stand her father but that is no reason she should be punished in the press. And this sort of publicity and media spotlight is horrible to endure especially for someone that young. Thanks, Jeffrey.
The link to her Harvard directory listing doesn't work. Try this one instead:
https://
www.directory.harvard.edu...mand_btn=Search
Broken link: you just showed how easy it is to find the information that Caldwell put on line. Compare that the to the effort Ms. giuliani went to in order to keep herself out of the spotlight.
I wonder how facebook will deal with the matter? Wasn't that a violation of their TOS?
"lisped" her way through an interview...
I guess if she was blind you'd have said something about her unfocused eyes too huh?
Shouldn't you be working at Little Green Footballs?
I wanna bet that you are on that facebook group that hates Caldwell.
Joining a facebook group is public. Anyone can view membership in groups, if Giuliani's daughter posted on the wall or anything it would be seen by ANYONE. Anyone can view a list of members in a group. This is not private information.
And also "there was no group for Giuliani" is BS, there's probably hundreds.
Now, whether what this woman did was wrong or not, that's another issue. But issue of privacy? I don't think so.
Shorten the damn article
Sylv3blade: Facebook did do soemthing. They deleted Caldwell from the service for violation of her contract.
Tom: I’ll take that bet. Just decide how much you want to lose. I’m not on Facebook at all and never heard of Caldwell until she did this and pushed herseelf into the limelight.
No; In fact the Facebook membership that Giuliani was using was one which restricted access to only her fellow school mates and which, even Caldwell admitted, denied access to the general public. Several major journalistic sites, such as the New York Times (which at least reported the facts not Caldwell’s inventions) said that Giuliani is the one candidate without a Facebook group. You call it “Bs” and say there are “probably hundreds”. I take it from the “probably” that you don’t know and are just guessing.
Here is an any easy challenge. If, as some contend, anyone in the public can access Giuliani’s Facebook page, then go to Facebook and do so. The only people who don’t count are anyone who goes to school with her. And if there are “probably” hundreds of Giuliani groups at Facebook then join one and show some evidence that it is older than the recent week -- of course one could have been started in the last few days but that is not the issue. Just find one that is more than one week old. If so the media reports saying one didn’t exist would be in error.
This is so reprehensibly stupid. Laura Calwell violated the privacy rights of minor, and in order to teach her a lesson, you violated her privacy and tried to induce the internet to harass and threaten her to submission. You have done far worse than laura has ever done. Shes just a stupid college student, you however, should know better.
the author has lost all moral high ground - you have no moral authority to do this and have misdirected your sense of outrage to an action of facile righteousness - shame on you!
You had a good point, and then you go and call Caldwell "a stereotypical blond" and imply she has a speech impediment.. With such third grade insults you have lost the right to your indignation. You hurt your own cause with this childishness.
The two anonymous replies above (the same person??) didn’t get it right. First, there is no Laura Calwell but a Lucy Caldwell, so when you comment try to pay attention to the facts. Next, the post specifically warns people against harassment or intimidation but then we already know you don’t read very carefully since you can’t even get the names right. Third, Caldwell lost her right to use the “stupid college student” excuse when she sold her story to the media and then went on national television with it.
The second anonymous, a few minutes after the first: Exactly how would you handle it. You can’t file charges with the police against Caldwell and her callous use of another human being. There was one person responsible for this media circus being inflicted on that girl and that was Caldwell. The only way to protest that is to let her know it was wrong. How do you do that? Post things on the net where she won’t see them? Send a letter to Slate? They got lots of letters protesting it and Caldwell just went ahead with her media circus anyway. She has no reason to care if Slate got nasty letters -- she doesn’t work for them she merely sold her article to them.
So protesting to the media doesn’t get to Caldwell. Posting essays saying what a nasty person Caldwell is won’t get noticed. The only choice left is to let Caldwell know that people find what she did to be wrong. And with any public figure that means sending them protests. And Caldwell made herself a public figure by going national with TV interviews. She thrust herself into the public arena intentional to further her own career. So how do you protest to her? You have three options to get a message to her. You can write, email or phone. But to do that you need an address, and email address or somewhere to leave a phone message. Caldwell helpfully posted all that information herself on the net.
If there is another alternative what would it be? No one seems to offer one. No legal options. Protests to publications don’t impact Caldwell since she doesn’t work for any of them. She is a public figure and she posted her own contact details on line so people could get in touch with her. I don’t see what else there is to do to protest this that will have any results. Do you?
I'm curious how anyone can condemn this piece without first criticizing Caldwell?
Not PUBLIC?
Are you an idiot?
Seriously . . . are you an idiot?
hey ken, do you think that twice saying "are you an idiot?" is actually an argument?
Caldwell has written quite a few more than four pieces for the Crimson:
http://www.thecrimson.com/writer...aspx?
id=1202183
Click on "Opinion" under "LUCY M. CALDWELL." There are three pages of op-ed pieces there (many of them at least a little inflammatory, of course).
The arguments people have written in here against Caldwell are littered with non sequitirs and outright bigotry. The reality is Mr. Giuliani's daughter has no doubt known since she could remember that she was something of a minor celebrity. I can't believe the sympathy for her expressed here. It's unreal. Like she isn't used to scrutiny. Yeah, I wonder how she got into Harvard? That scrutiny has a positive side to it as well as this negative side, increased attention.
There is no argument that Facebook's stuff is private. Sorry folks. Look around you. If you are interested in privacy, you do not sign up for a social networking service that allows many people who you do not know to see what you think about X or Y. That just is ridiculous on the face of it, no pun intended. No jury in this country would accept that premise, no matter what some dry piece of paper that no one reads to begin with says (I'm referring to the TOS, yeah, you read it all the way through, right?). Giuliani put herself out there and this reporter actually did what any reporter would have done. And I think she served the public interest, which is what good journalists do. Giuliani, the candidate, is well known in NYC as a liberal. On social issues, let's be honest, he is as liberal as any of the Democratic candidates. This news about his daughter is just one more indication of his liberal beliefs - kids often take after their parents in politics. I think the story speaks well of his daughter, too. She is not some mindless drone simply supporting daddy. She uses the internet and she signed up for a web site. Joining a web site is hardly a vote. Maybe she supports daddy, maybe she doesn't. The point is, she's out there doing her own thing.
Caldwell did what good reporters do. They find information and report it if it's even remotely relevant to discourse. And this is. And there was no bar for reporting it. Facebook is public and if you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.
Thefultonhow: Caldwell only wrote three of four “news” pieces to be more precise. If you search their news achieve you won’t find she writes beyond sending out her opinion.
Joe makes the charge of “outright bigotry” but he never substantiates it or clarifies precisely what he talking about. As far as I can see he has a dislike for Ms. Giuliani because of her father. I don’t like her father either but then I might not like Joe’s father. It is not relevant who she is related to. She didn’t seek publicity and has shied away from the campaign and her wishes should have been respected. She is not a legitimate target just because one doesn’t like her father.
Joe’s issues seems to be that he and Caldwell are conservatives. He and Caldwell both think Mr. Giuliani is a “liberal” and that the daughter said she is a “liberal” and in today’s conservative movement liberals are fair game for anything you say or do to them.
The Giuliani girl has the right to be left alone. She has done nothing worthy of media attention and to attack her because of her father is disgusting.
Whatever the critics say, according to Digg this article got 1,256 votes in the last 14 hours and 21 minutes. That makes it the second most popular article in the last day and the 7th in the last week even though it is the most recent of the bunch. Clearly the people who leave bitchy messages don't speak for everyone.
First I'd like to say that I agree with the article although some of the insult could've been toned down or redirected to Caldwell's real character flaws that are relevant to issue at hand.
With regards to the "Is Facebook private?" question, Facebook is public to your private networks. That is to say, Facebook is a form of trust network where your information is only available to people that are members to the networks that you belong and "trust". It isn't a public phonebook or directory by any means. And members are expected to trust and respect each other and their privacy (as should be the case online and off).
What Caldwell did goes against basic human trust, dignity, and decency. Her "story" was just sensationalist yellow news that did less to inform the public about anything really meaningful and did more to damage our cultural values about how we should respect other's personal lives. Let's face it, she probably really got Ms. Guiliani in a shit storm of an argument with her dad and probably created an enormous amount of tension between them. The fact that Ms. Guiliani potentially doesn't support her father's political views doesn't mean a damn thing about her father or herself.
In her interview where Caldwell completed her initiation into becoming a completely rotten person (BTW all men need to take notice and never marry a women like this) she commented on how she thought it "odd" that Ms. Guiliani was liberal and POTENTIALLY didn't support her father's presidency. I don't think that's odd, I think that's awesome. I think it's fine for children to have differing views from their parents. And kudos to her parents for allowing her to have her own brain she can think with. Caldwell revealed her own intolerant nature by suggesting that any form of difference is "odd." And for that Caldwell is an indecent and egocentric person and should apologize for her behavior. Likewise so should the whole of the media for their behavior as well. Honestly, Harvard should consider expelling her as she leaves a stain on their reputation as it suggests they cultivate rotten people.
In short what Caldwell did needs to be considered taboo, and yes she should be reasonably humiliated because of it. No threats or unnecessary insults, just pure embarrassment for her lack of humanity and complete egotism. She displayed an enormous degree of greed, in sacrificing other's piece of mind for her own gain.
Watching her on the news made me feel so ill I couldn't finish the whole thing. What she's done was damaging to our standards of human conduct, eroding respect for the political process, and degrading to our media networks.
The only news reported was human ego and greed.
Peter B: I think your remarks are thoughtful and right on the mark.
Yes, the insults could have been toned down, and I were writing a newspaper or magazine story they would have been. It’s a personal blog and it is supposed to show not just what I think but how I feel. To simply say: “I’m pissed off” doesn’t get that across. I wish it did. That is the probably of the media being used. And when I see innocent people being victimized by people like Caldwell I get furious. And I always will. What shocks me is that others don’t seem to care as long as it isn’t them.
I see a lot of conservatives, like Caldwell herself, defending this. Yet you aptly described true conservative values, whether or not you call yourself one is not important. I think respecting individuals is a core value for any decent society. And no matter who her father is, Ms. Giuliani shouldn’t have been used as a tool for the instant fame of a nobody.
I can’t disagree with a word you said.
If you've read the rest of the thread here, certainly you cannot say that many comments are simply bigoted. Attacking the reporter due to a lisp or blonde hair is not bigoted? That I have to explain this is quite discouraging, to say the least. Those are bigoted remarks and completely unrelated to the argument (non sequitirs). They diminish the whole discussion.
In any case, I would argue that the report does contribute to the discourse about Mr. Giuliani. I'm not a conservative by the way; I live in NYC and one thing I think many of us agree on here is that the rest of the country does not know Rudy the way we know Rudy. Of course, he's like a lot of politicians who say what they think people in certain demographics want to hear. His daughter's opinions are certainly relevant to what he thinks. Consider the case of Dick Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. But this is digressing in any case.
The point is this: Facebook and all the other social networking sites are public. If a court rules otherwise, maybe you'll have a point. If Giuliani really believes her privacy was violated, she can, by the way, simply sue Ms. Caldwell. I doubt she will. A jury would never go for her argument. I mean, there are thousands of students at Harvard. And how dumb is she? Does anyone really think that if you share information with thousands of people you don't know that it is really "private"? Is that private? Come on. That's not private. There's a point at which the number of people you share information with makes something public. Who wants to take a stab at defining that number? I won't, but once you get up past 1,000 people, I would think that one's claim to privacy is walking on thin ice. And no matter what Facebook says, I don't think there is any Facebook-Client privilege they can impose. Facebook is not an attorney or a member of the clergy or a therapist, despite what it's proponents may claim. If I read something on Facebook that I thought was relevant to public discourse and I were a journalist, I would weigh the public interest against the claim to privacy. And, sorry, but in this instance, the public interest well outweighs the claim to privacy. There is no claim to privacy worth talking about here, IMHO. When people start trying to define privacy upward, above say 1,000 people, I get an attack of the giggles. On the subject of public interest, well, the coverage speaks for itself. People are interested in this because it is relevant to who Rudy Giuliani is. I don't think it makes him look bad, I don't think it necessarily makes him look good. But it gets people talking about his character. To me, it's a good example of what makes conservatives very jittery supporting Giuliani. It's also a good example of an independent minded daughter - that speaks well of him, IMHO....
Did anyone notice the “column” by Caldwell about the lacrosse players accused of rape falsely? She acknowledges they were victims but then manages to drag herself into the piece by saying that none of them appear to have the moral character sufficient for her to date them. I don’t think they should ate her either. Haven’t they suffered enough?
Yes, she's written 4 articles, but she's written dozens and dozens of opinion pieces. check those out.
Caldwell has been a disaster to the press for a while now. As the previous commenter said, she's posted dozens of opinion pieces, each of which has been worse than the last.
Check out her piece about rape, which totally incensed most of the student population:
http://www.thecrimson.com/articl...aspx?
ref=518304
Well done. Women are incompetent.
-Dick
I just read Caldwell's rape piece that someone cites as evidence of her "disaster at the press," whatever that means. It's actually pretty clearly written. It laudably makes a case for a very forgotten group of people who have virtually no one advocating for them: Men mistakenly accused of rape. I don't agree with Caldwell's opinion, but I would gladly fight for her right to express it.
It does not surprise me that students at Harvard would be upset at it. But this would run without much incident in most parts of the country. You cannot take the reaction of people to a column as evidence that it is poorly written. I doubt that that was what motivated the Harvard students' reaction. You might want to consider reactions of people in the South to reports written about their attitudes toward race in the 1960s that ran in the NY Times. Something tells me that the southerners' vehement reactions to the Times' articles were not sufficient proof that the Times was a "disaster to the press."
Another thing in Caldwell's favor: She's young. I cannot believe the tenor of some of the comments I'm reading here. It sounds like a big group of Old Testament prophets! I imagine the naysayers sitting there brooding over this as they are stroking their beards in indignation. I would love to get my hands on some of the first opinion pieces any of you may have had published (if you, in fact, had any published, which I doubt given the naivete of comments here). Young opinion writers tend to write columns that fall into two, uh, columns: Banal to the point of existential crisis or naively tendentious with lots of self-righteousness. Ms. Caldwell is still finding her voice and for goodness' sake, give her a break.
It's being tossed back and forth whether or not Facebook info can be considered private, even if the user has taken steps to remain private. However isn't there an even more important question to ask: is there any guarantee that anybody is who they say they are on Facebook?
An entire 'news' story has been based on the assumption that this really, truly is Giuliani's daughter.
As I see it, here are the key assumptions made to make this magical story happen:
**************************
FACT 1: somebody created a free account on a social networking site under the the name/alias "Rose G" using personal details of Giuliani's daughter
ASSUMPTION 1: without question this is Giuliani's daughter
**************************
FACT 2: The user "Rose G" clicked a button on Facebook to join a loose association of people that share interest in Obama's presidential run
ASSUMPTION 2: Giuliani's daughter undoubtedly supports Obama as a presidential candidate, even over her own father, because she rejects what he stands for
**************************
FACT 3: the previous 2 assumptions, if true, would be embarrassing and therefore hurtful to Giuliani's campaign
ASSUMPTION 3: these 2 assumptions are true and this is a news-worthy item of public interest, defying any agreed-upon TOS on Facebook or ethical consideration of the private citizen involved
**************************
I suppose the remaining FACT 4 that made this possible is "the public will gobble this piece of juicy gossip up and rocket the whistle-blower to fame and success".
Peter B: I cannot disagree more with some of your assertions. I cannot believe anyone in this day and age would expect privacy for what they do on the Internet. Seriously. That is hopelessly naive. If you have a secret you should not be discussing it in emails, on chat lines, etc. How many people have to be embarrassed beyond belief by having one of their emails show up on the boss's desk in order to learn this basic fact of the Internet age? I'm not going to debate whether this is the way it should be or not. This is the way it is and anyone using the Internet should know enough to understand that. People joining social networks must know better. I can't believe they are as stupid as you are suggesting.
On the issue of Ms. Giuliani's membership on Mr. Obama's web site, you assert that this is of no public interest at all. The facts show you are wrong. Millions of people are interested to know this. It is revealing. Is it significant? I personally do not believe it is a huge deal for exactly the reasons that you suggest: No one judges whether to vote for someone based on what their kids (or other relations do) (uh, wait, George Bush, hmmmm. I might be wrong.) Bill Clinton's step father was alcoholic and abusive. No one thought Clinton was or used it against him; in fact, quite the opposite. But it does reveal something about Rudy. And good lord, are you serious that you care about what kind of argument the Giuliani family may have had over this? Who gives a hoot. But it is funny just to think about that given all the crap Rudy pulled in NYC.
she's getting fame and success from reporting the story because it is news worthy to report it. you can't blame her for the attention she's getting, even if she sought it. lots of reporters think they are breaking big news that never gets more attention than the family circus cartoon that runs without fail every sunday (why???). she knew she was on to something, recognized it and ran with it. not all news can be collected following the ethical guidelines people are pushing here (ever heard of the pentagon papers?). look, gary hart had reporters camping out when he basically challenged them to prove what everyone in Washington knew. was it invasive? yes. was it unethical? not really. the reality is, information wants to be free and seeks to be free of its own accord. if you don't guard it, it will escape. this reporter has done a service to all of the naive people out there who think they can use the internet without any risk of revealing themselves. they now know otherwise and should wake up.
Tom S: your assumptions are not assumptions any more, I think we can safely, uh, assume. I mean, Giuliani's daughter's best argument - everyone's best argument when faced with unwelcome information - would be that it's not true (and we wouldn't be having this debate here). As far as I know, the Giuliani family nor his handlers have ever suggested that it's not true. Now they're just trying to spin it, just like they and their competition will try to spin every item of "news" from here to the first Tuesday of November next year.
And by the way, what is so wrong with gossip? We all decry it, but come on people love gossip. Trying to eradicate it is hopeless. It makes life fun, if you look at it the right way. The news here is actually not the news any more; it's the reaction to it that is so interesting. I'm willing to moderate my view, thanks to this discussion, that social networks should provide some guarantee of privacy. But they are uncharted territory for the law, unless someone can show me otherwise. It turns out that just like the old village square, social networks are only as good as the people in them. So, the lesson may be, just like in the village square, don't tell people your business if you don't want it to get out.
joe -- I'll admit that I don't know for sure, but do YOU know for sure that this is really her? Can we really "safely assume", as you state? Facebook doesn't have the same identity authentication practices as, say, a mortgage lender, so there's virtually no way to ensure this is the actual person. This is a very serious detail that news agencies are glossing over, and the ENTIRE STORY rests on this assumption. It's very reasonable to be skeptical on this important point...
And I'm not trying to throw a smoke-screen up by confusing the issue, I just wonder if ANY ACTUAL OPINIONS have been voiced by the daughter, or just inferred by the 2 assumptions I listed. Have any? Has the daughter come forward?
Regarding gossip, it can be benign, but in this case my problem with gossip:
- it's never flattering to the people it's about
- despite its dubious sources it's readily believed rather than doubted
- it's believability magically increases if the people involved don't address and explicitly deny it (i.e. silence = admission of guilt)
- it has mostly entertainment value, as opposed to actionable information, and is therefore more popular to the masses, and therefore gets more airtime than more significant, life-altering issues on the major news outlets
News channels covering gossip stories is like the cafeteria serving candy for lunch.
I'm not particularly interested in defending Caldwell -- her behavior was rude and crass.
However, standing on the commons of your university campus, instead of on the corner of the main street in town, holding your "Obama for President" sign, doesn't make the fact that you're holding that Obama sign "private." Neither does introducing yourself by a name other than your own make your identity, if it can be discovered without trespass, "private."
Miss Giuliani did the equivalent of standing in a public area, while holding the equivalent of an "Obama for President" sign, and introducing herself as "Rose G" rather than by her real name.
To hold that taking notice of who she actually is and what she does in public, is somehow an invasion of her privacy is 180 degrees at variance with the concept of privacy. If she wanted her support for Obama to be a private matter, she could have kept it private. She didn't, and it isn't.
Thomas wrote, "Miss Giuliani did the equivalent of standing in a public area, while holding the equivalent of an "Obama for President" sign, and introducing herself as "Rose G" rather than by her real name."
In the CNN interview that CLS includes in his article, Caldwell says, "...Caroline Giuliani felt like joining the Barack Obama Facebook group, we don't know why..."
So to be more correct, Miss Giuliani stood in a public area, while holding a sign which couldn't be read, but some news agencies painted "Obama for President" on. Oh, and the face was kind of blurry ("Rose G"), so they pasted hers on it to be clearer...all in the name of serving the public.
I happen to hold to a view that legitimate news publications don’t merely report things because the lowest common denominator is curious or interested in it. That news journalism into gossip mongering.
Thomas: She didn’t hold an “obama for president” sign she signed up for a social group that was about Obama. I have joined discussion groups where I disagreed with the group just to see what was being said. You continued to take Caldwell’s claim that this was an endorsement and repeat it as fact. We simply don’t know. Caldwell didn’t know. She lied in Slate when she intimated it was an endorsement. On TV she backed away from that. Now unless Giuliani told you something she had not told anyone else I don’t see how you can keep repeating the claim of “her support for Obama.”
Tom S. You got the point right. Caldwell doesn’t know what it meant. She claimed she did. Other media sources then repeated the claim around the world without bothering to see that there was no endorsement. It may well turn out that Giuliani is voting for Obama next year. Maybe not. I don’t know and neither does anyone else here. And neither did Caldwell or the media who repeated her false assertion.
CLS,
The reason I can keep repeating the claim of Miss Giuliani's "support for Obama" is that she did something to indicate such support.
You write: "have joined discussion groups where I disagreed with the group just to see what was being said."
Fair enough. But if I happen to join NORML's March to the Arch for Legalization just because I like a female who's attending, or just to see what they have to say, I don't really have any grounds to whine if those who see me marching to the arch under a NORML banner assume that I endorse the legalization of marijuana.
Similarly, if you sign up for a discussion group about cross-burning techniques and how to make a proper sheet and hood -- just because you're interested or want to know what they're up to over there -- you don't have any grounds to whine if those who notice assume you're a klansman.
Miss Giuliani joined a public (you don't have to like the fact that it's public -- that fact will remain a fact whether you like it or not) group that promotes Obama. Maybe she supports Obama, maybe she doesn't -- but she has no grounds to whine, nor does anyone have any grounds to whine on her behalf, over the fact that joining a group that promotes Obama spawns a reasonable presumption on the part of observers that the person doing so does, in fact, support Obama.
You got this one wrong. No biggie -- you get more right than you get wrong, and you get more right than most people do. At this point, you're mainly just spotlighting your own minor screwup by continuing to defend it rather than saying "hey, to err is human" and moving on.
Tom: Please note that the word “join” can imply different things. For instance if somebody “joins” the klan they pay dues and become a member. If somebody joins an on line discussion group they don’t endorse anything or pay anything they just participate. A regular reader of this blog has joined the Stormfront group to see what racist babble they are spouting. But he is not a supporter even if he “joined” the group. I have done the same thing with numerous on line groups myself. Marching in a parade seems to be a bit stronger than merely signing up to a discussion group.
I do think anyone who makes assumptions on that flimsy a basis is being an ass. And the rational assumption out of this can only be that she “might” support Obama and she needs to confirm it. You don’t spread around that she had endorsed him or does support him without the verification. It is simply bad journalism, more like gossiping really. It is an unwarranted assumption. Perhaps she is, maybe the odds are in favor of her supporting Obama. But you don’t report something as a fact that is mere speculation on your part. If it is speculation at the very least you say so. Caldwell voiced no such apprehension and made outright statements of fact that she can’t make up and admitted she can’t back up. And the rest of the media herd just followed along repeating the original falsehood.
And I will have to disagree with you. I don’t think I’ve erred on this one. I think it is wrong to print as fact mere speculation. And I think it was wrong to do it to this girl who is trying to stay under the radar. And Caldwell clearly had suspicions she couldn’t verify but she went ahead and reported them as fact absent that verification. That is dishonest and not what I learned when I went to university and took journalism (majored actually)
By the way, while I think it a bit sleazy it would not have been nearly as bad is she wrote a clearly marked opinion piece (not marketed as news), and if she openly speculated as to what this meant. I don't think she should have taken the screen capture in violation of her agreement with Facebook. But to take speculation and print it as fact is journalistically supposed to be not on. No one questions that this blog is about opinion, hopefully opinion backed by facts, but still opinion. A news story is a different animal. And that is the problem with Caldwell's speculation.
You said: "And we should also note that she is a minor, under 18 years of age..." "But the press doesn’t give a damn if someone is a minor..." "...without dragging his underage daughter into the frenzy." "She is a minor." "That they did this to girl who is not yet legally an adult is even more shameful." "...invading the privacy of an underage girl." "She sent questions to Giuliani’s underage daugther..." "Unlike Giuliani’s daughter she is a legal adult..." "And, by the way, I think it would have been sleazy to do this to the girl even if she were a legal adult..." "...journalists who invade the privacy of underage girls just because of their father."
CLS: You now claim that the simple, easily-checked fact that this young woman was 18 and not 17 as you asserted was not relevant. If not, then why did you keep bringing it up in your article? (And why has there been no correction from you on the main article?)
EdD: I also originally wrote, "I think it would have been sleazy to do this to the girl even if she were a legal adult in light of her efforts to obtain her privacy." To say that this was a central argument is false. I specifically said my argument would not change regardless of her age and it doesn't. It was not and is not the central point of my argument. And I still stand by what I said, that her age is not a central factor.
I also know that one person came here and claimed the newspaper accounts sayin Giuliani was underage are wrong. I have not attempted to double check that claim since the point was not central to argument but at most would have an aggregvating circumstance. But if the birthdate listed by the commenter is correct then it means the story only broke shortly after her birthday but it would have begun before that. But those few days are not central to the argument.
It is still a sleszy thing to do if she were 25 years old. It is pathetic journalism, the big nonstory of the year hyped only to use the girls relationship to her father to gain publicity for the author and readership for the media. The article itself is still dishonest because it stated as facts the theory of Caldwell without sufficient eidence. When Caldwell couldn't get a comment confirming her theory she wrote up as fact.
She knew, and confessed on TV, that she didn't have proof that what she claimed was true just htat she found it odd. That is not journalism.
CLS, your responses and non-responses simply confirm my cynical attitudes toward blogs. You cherry pick on your responses. I wrote many posts back that you label journalists "bastards" and "pirahnas." I notice that you have yet to retract that indictment of all journalists. I doubt you'll retract anything, really. You're just as bad as the people you rant about. Pathetic.
Another thing to consider that is relevant is how much news we would not get if people followed the ethical guidelines CLS is promoting. I hope we will soon see a diatribe against The Smoking Gun, Matt Drudge and countless other web sites on your blog, not to mention The National Enquirer, Us Weekly, etc. ad infinitum. I find it very interesting that you picked out some anonymous Harvard student, really, to make this big point about ethics in the media.
Ethical guidelines are very often not black and white. There are many examples of circumstances where the answer is not cut and dry. If you are reporting about a gang and you learn that the members intend to commit a crime, do you inform the police? To whom are you ethically bound in this case - the subjects who have allowed you to see into their world or the general public who face suffering harm? It is not as simple as people want to pretend. What if you were covering a war and you are traveling with rebels whose cause you judge as just. Then you learn they will attack a secret force of CIA agents, fellow Americans (or fellow citizens of whatever country you call home)? These ethical dilemmas are very common. When I worked near Cleveland, we learned at our newspaper that a City Councilman was cheating on his wife with the babysitter. We never ran that story. We thought it was an invasion of personal privacy. Politics really had nothing to do with that decision. We saw it as common decency that one's private life is private. But boy, I can tell some of the people here will be gasping at that one.
To use words like "media whore," "stereotypical blond" and "bimbo" - come on, who are you fooling? These are sexist words. Thou dost protest too much, I'm afraid. Your defensiveness is over the top. Don't feel bad - lots of people are unaware of the bigoted meanings of the language they use. To then claim very tenuous shades of meaning (whore has no gender connection at all, yeah. right) as a defense is completely unconvincing.
Why would I retract when it is true that many, certainly never single one, are bastards and pirahnas. I was a journalism major and have seen lots of journalists up front. I know they selectively quote, they misquote or invent quotes, they hound people, they implicate the innocent, etc. And then they hide behind the first amendment. I believe in the first amendment, more than most people. And I am not saying anything about legal sanctions. But I think people should know that there are many reasons to be skeptical about journalists.
As for the others, I don’t consider them journalists. And the ethicals requirements to express an opinion are not the same as the ethical requirements for good journalism. To compare private opinions on blogs to public newspaper that pretend to be objective is like comparing fish and chairs.
I agree ethical guidelines can be hard to discern at times. In this case Caldwell invented things. That is not close to blurred. And there can be times when it is appropriate to report on the child of a candidate but this was not one of them. Personally I’m glad you guys didn’t run that story but there are lots of stories that get run that shouldn’t.
If you think that “stereotypical blond” is sexist then fine. I’m not worried. And since I’ve met male prostitutes who said they were whores no I don’t think that is necessarily about females. And “media whore” is a different thing than “whore” and most people realize that. Removing “media” from the lable is an intentional distortion worthy of the sort of selective quotations I often see.
CLS: "[H]er age is not a central factor"? The headline of this article starts "'Journalist" invades privacy of candidate's underage daughter'," you repeat this assertion that she was a minor at least ten times, and yet you still claim it isn't central to your thesis? Why bring it up so many times otherwise? And why not spend 15 seconds fact-checking this before you wrote the article? Or since? You complain of "pathetic journalism" and hype but this article stands as a prime example of both.
EdD: If the statement in the article saying my position would be the same no matter her age is not enough for you I don't know what is, or care. You seem to be unable to get through your head that not ever statement in an argument is a central argument but merely an elaboration or side argument.
Also you aren't very bright. This is a blog not journalism. I don't pretend this is journalism. It is a personal blog expressing my opinions. Saying it isn't journalism is absolutely right. But I never said it was and repeatedly said it isn't. Perhaps you should get someone to read what I've said and explain it, 'cause it's not getting through.
It's definitely an issue to debate: Are blogs journalism? There certainly is no hard and fast rule about what blogs really are: Just opinion? Citizen journalists? News analysis? etc. It seems to me that sometimes bloggers want it both ways, though: When they are called to task on the quality of their reporting, they are "just expressing opinion." But when they want to get a press pass into some sort of event or otherwise claim the privileges normally accorded professional journalists, they want to be considered journalists. Personally, I consider them journalists - not to hold them to the standards of journalists, but rather the latter - to accord them the same privileges journalists have accrued over the years. So, yes, I hold them to a higher standard than perhaps they deserve. You must realize that when you say "this is just opinion" you really sell yourself short and it's almost a sort of disclaimer. Why would you not, even when 'simply' expressing an opinion, stand behind it solidly and hold yourself to high expectations for its validity and thoroughness and fairness, etc.? This boggles my mind.
Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk make a similar claim when people accuse them of spotty reporting: "I'm just an entertainer!" he cries. Sounds like you're using that disclaimer here. Which I'll keep in mind next time you're bleating about something.
As for sexist language: You really are protesting too much. Look over your previous columns and tell me, when you've written about male journalists how many times have you used the terms you claim to apply equally despite the gender of the person you're writing about? I think that should make the point pretty well. I would guess that you only used 'media whore' and 'stereotypical blond' with women. Yet 'obviously' these are gender-neutral terms! So, how do you explain this one-sided use of them?
Joe: I’ve never claimed that this is anything more than what it is. I draw conclusions and express opinions. I state the reasons why I do so and offer evidence to try to explain why I draw those conclusions. I’ve never tried to have it both ways here. If other bloggers have I can’t say, but I can’t be held responsible for what they might say.
Second, I don’t believe “professional journalists” ought to have any more “privileges” than apply to anyone else. In other words the “privileges” that journalists have ought to apply to the public as well. You aren’t a special class of people with rights different from others. I believe in equality of rights.
Third, I do think journalists have an obligation to themselves and their profession to do something the public is not required to do -- be as objective and balanced as possible. That is for the good of the profession.
Fourth, I have never said this is “just opinion”. I have tried to make it clear that is not journalism and that I do have my conclusions which I open and upfront about -- unlike many journalists who pretend to be objective but aren’t. Between “journalism” and “just opinion” there is a lot more territory than you seem willing to acknowledge. I have said that while I am expressing my views that I offer evidence for them and try to marshall the facts to show why I draw a conclusion. “Just opinion” makes it sound as if it unrelated to evidence.
Fifth, it seems you are playing an irrational game. If you accuse me of sexism and I protest that proves I’m guilty since I’m protesting. But others may accuse me of sexism but if I don’t protest that proves I’m guilty as well since I’d didn’t defend myself. Apparently, in your world, the only people who don’t defend themselves are the innocent. Or is there some magic level of defending oneself that is acceptable?
I could say that you accuse me because you know what I said about the state of journalism is true. I would have no evidence for that just as you have none for saying that defending myself against your claims is proof the claims are true.
If anyone should be able to judge someone than it shouldn't be the media.the jumped to conclusions as if she was about to murder her father by joining that group. I wonder if she just joined the group for the fun of it or if she was really trying to make a point. And she isn't even a minor unless she was a minor at the time, she refused to say anything. She wasn't trying to be famous nor was she trying to make any statements, so obviously she doesn't want any media attention. If she wanted any she would just use her dad. So sorry media some people can do math and not everyone wants to be famous. Utter retards.
you should try to get your facts right: its not that i support caldwell or anything, but she writes for the Crimson quite frequently... every other week to be exact.
Commenting by HaloScan
