[QuickTidal]

Samantha Bee FTW:

“What many fail to understand is that it doesn’t have to be rape to ruin your life, and it doesn’t have to ruin your life to be worth speaking out about.”

“Any kind of sexual harassment or coercion is unacceptable,” she said on Wednesday’s Full Frontal. “So what the f— are women supposed to do to protect ourselves? If we go public with a story, we’re petty crybabies hellbent on destroying men’s careers. If we write a secret list to protect each other, we’re gossipy shrews telling lies in the shadows. What men literally cannot understand is, this isn’t about them.”

To Banfield’s remarks, Bee shot back, “It’s harder than you think to leave when you’re uncomfortable or scared. For example, you’re scaring the s— out of me right now, Ashley Banfield, and I can’t leave. And it’s not just Ashley. A lot of people are worried about Aziz Ansari’s career, which no one is trying to end because, again, we know the difference between a rapist, a workplace harasser, and an Aziz Ansari. That doesn’t mean we have to be happy about any of them.

“People like me had to wade through a sea of prehensile d—s to build the world we now enjoy, and part of enjoying that world is setting a higher standard for sex than just not-rape. And women get to talk about it if men don’t live up to those standards, especially if that man wrote a book about how to sex good,” she continued, referring to Ansari’s Modern Romance book.

Bee concluded with a message for all men who want to support the #MeToo movement: “Men, if you say you’re a feminist, then f— like a feminist. And if you don’t wanna do that, take off your f—in’ pin because we are not your accessories.”

[amphibian]

There's very real fodder to be had in the bad reporting by Katie Way at Babe dot net (the reporter who wrote the Aziz Ansari article with Grace as a source).

The editors at Babe and Way completely failed Grace as a source with their incompetent work. However, what Aziz did is still wrong.

It's not career ruining wrong, but Johnny Depp who assaulted and abused Amber Heard for months, still has a career and still is a multi millionaire. Most of these men (and the occasional lady) are wealthy and even if their careers ended there and then, they'd still be well off. But most careers don't end after wrong doing and the wrongdoers rarely face actual punishment or repercussions beyond partial loss of future employment. That's the reality we live in - and it should change to a better one.

Yes, the #metoo movement has flaws. But talking of wrongs like those Ansari did is very valuable. Way and her editors badly fit it all together and the conversation suffered for it. That's a shame and several publications have rightly criticized Babe and Way for doing so. And Babe has responded very poorly.

As for what happened with Kramer and Nassar in gymnastics, those are monsters and everyone can agree upon that.

But what restitution has to be made? What hangers have to be made so the 15+ Michigan State and USA gymnastics coaches, directors, and presidents who knew of the abuse occurring don't sweep it under the rug? What immediate and logging term actions are done to make amends or to prevent future harm?

We aren't good at answering these questions and it is really time that we let the survivors and those harmed drive that process. Simone Biles has said she never wants to train on the Karolyi ranch again. I think that's reasonable, even if it costs USA gymnastics millions to relocate.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 18 January 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

There's very real fodder to be had in the bad reporting by Katie Way at Babe dot net (the reporter who wrote the Aziz Ansari article with Grace as a source).

The fact that THIS is the part of the thing that so many are focusing on....is part of the damned problem.

I don't care if it was reported on a goddamned napkin, scrawled out by a koala bear with a green magic marker...Grace's story is the important part.

Is anything in the story untrue? Probably not.

As such nitpicking the media outlet's additions and bends to their specific reader demographic (mentioning the wine choice, or her dress) is WELL besides the point, and worse, takes the focus off the subject.

Keep your eye on the ball.

[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

amphibian, on 18 January 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

There's very real fodder to be had in the bad reporting by Katie Way at Babe dot net (the reporter who wrote the Aziz Ansari article with Grace as a source).

The fact that THIS is the part of the thing that so many are focusing on....is part of the damned problem.

I don't care if it was reported on a goddamned napkin, scrawled out by a koala bear with a green magic marker...Grace's story is the important part.

Is anything in the story untrue? Probably not.

As such nitpicking the media outlet's additions and bends to their specific reader demographic (mentioning the wine choice, or her dress) is WELL besides the point, and worse, takes the focus off the subject.

Keep your eye on the ball.

Just like Samantha Bee says women can talk about the Ansari thing being wrong but "know the difference between a rapist, a workplace harasser, and an Aziz Ansari."

Everyone else can talk about big problems with journalistic integrity and quality and not miss the point of the larger discussion.

So no, its not part of the problem. And it is also not nitpicking.

The way it was reported has affected the way people have responded. And some journalistic standards not followed are also problematic and not a small deal, either.

[amphibian]

Briar King, on 18 January 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

Wait when did the gymnastics ranch thing get brought up? I usually click all links and don’t remember this. This is the ranch started by the Russian immigrants that have turned out gold after gold after gold for us right?

The Karolyi family is not implicated in this mass abuse situation. It's Michigan State University and the coach of the Rio Olympics team who are talked about in terms of enabling Nassar to abuse at least 140 women. I say at least because that's how many are prepared to testify against him or have come forward with accusations.

[Vengeance]

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

amphibian, on 18 January 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

There's very real fodder to be had in the bad reporting by Katie Way at Babe dot net (the reporter who wrote the Aziz Ansari article with Grace as a source).

The fact that THIS is the part of the thing that so many are focusing on....is part of the damned problem.

I don't care if it was reported on a goddamned napkin, scrawled out by a koala bear with a green magic marker...Grace's story is the important part.

Is anything in the story untrue? Probably not.

As such nitpicking the media outlet's additions and bends to their specific reader demographic (mentioning the wine choice, or her dress) is WELL besides the point, and worse, takes the focus off the subject.

Keep your eye on the ball.

You are wrong. If higher standards is your goal then apply it equally or don't apply it at all. Otherwise you are encouraging bad reporting for the sake of click bait which will be extremely counter productive in the long run. If you want to change the behavior of an entire generation. ( Which is what we are ultimately talking about. Parent's educating children so that in the future none of this is an issue. Regardless of the more immediate impact of revealing pedophiles and abusers. ) Then the facts of the accounts have to be correctly reported. The articles have to be written correctly.

I agree that Grace's story is correct but including nonpertant information undermines the story. While glasses of wine and an outfit are important to Grace they are not important to the story and should be left out. Including them allows for readers to see Grace as overtly superficial and clueless. Who the fuck drinks red with oysters, and I would expect her to wear a nice outfit on a date. If she wore a feed bag then she wouldn't be going out on a date with a human.

Not allowing for Aziz to confirm or deny the story or only allowing for 5 hours is bad reporting. It smacks of someone who is in a rush to get something out and get clicks and accolades rather then someone who is willing to take the time to verify all aspects of something. Look at the reporting that the Washington Post did on Moore. They verified that each girl was where she said that she was and that Moore was in the building every single time. They verified times and dates so that when people questioned their reporting they were successfully able to back up themselves.

You want shit then read the inquirer. They are right twice a decade. You want good things then be like the Washington Post and do good reporting and good writing. Edit your articles. Otherwise it will come back and lead to backlash. You win movements with well written accounts and the truth. You lose movements with poorly written shit.

[QuickTidal]

Vengeance, on 18 January 2018 - 07:29 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

amphibian, on 18 January 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

There's very real fodder to be had in the bad reporting by Katie Way at Babe dot net (the reporter who wrote the Aziz Ansari article with Grace as a source).

The fact that THIS is the part of the thing that so many are focusing on....is part of the damned problem.

I don't care if it was reported on a goddamned napkin, scrawled out by a koala bear with a green magic marker...Grace's story is the important part.

Is anything in the story untrue? Probably not.

As such nitpicking the media outlet's additions and bends to their specific reader demographic (mentioning the wine choice, or her dress) is WELL besides the point, and worse, takes the focus off the subject.

Keep your eye on the ball.

You are wrong. If higher standards is your goal then apply it equally or don't apply it at all. Otherwise you are encouraging bad reporting for the sake of click bait which will be extremely counter productive in the long run. If you want to change the behavior of an entire generation. ( Which is what we are ultimately talking about. Parent's educating children so that in the future none of this is an issue. Regardless of the more immediate impact of revealing pedophiles and abusers. ) Then the facts of the accounts have to be correctly reported. The articles have to be written correctly.

I agree that Grace's story is correct but including nonpertant information undermines the story. While glasses of wine and an outfit are important to Grace they are not important to the story and should be left out. Including them allows for readers to see Grace as overtly superficial and clueless. Who the fuck drinks red with oysters, and I would expect her to wear a nice outfit on a date. If she wore a feed bag then she wouldn't be going out on a date with a human.

Not allowing for Aziz to confirm or deny the story or only allowing for 5 hours is bad reporting. It smacks of someone who is in a rush to get something out and get clicks and accolades rather then someone who is willing to take the time to verify all aspects of something. Look at the reporting that the Washington Post did on Moore. They verified that each girl was where she said that she was and that Moore was in the building every single time. They verified times and dates so that when people questioned their reporting they were successfully able to back up themselves.

You want shit then read the inquirer. They are right twice a decade. You want good things then be like the Washington Post and do good reporting and good writing. Edit your articles. Otherwise it will come back and lead to backlash. You win movements with well written accounts and the truth. You lose movements with poorly written shit.

I'm talking about the focus on this as opposed to the glut of the story. Jezebel...famously feminist website...didn't write a piece about the incident, they wrote about the Babe.net article and its author instead (I dunno, perhaps because they consider Aziz an ally, and can't reconcile that with what he's done?). The same is true of that hack job Banfield went off on. In a lot of cases it's overshadowing the nature of the story. That's what I'm railing against.

And it's gatekeeper news outlets that lead the charge on this focus. That's telling.

Yes, correct reporting is important. But the issues with the piece at Babe does not even get NEAR the level of scrutiny it's facing about it. It's just one more way that Grace's story is being pushed out of the spotlight by gatekeeper traditionalists.

I see MINOR issues with the piece at Babe....but nothing to get overly worked up over. The main glut of the story is present and accounted for. Any clicky-accoutrement Katie added is neither here nor there.

[Vengeance]

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2018 - 07:38 PM, said:

Vengeance, on 18 January 2018 - 07:29 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

amphibian, on 18 January 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

There's very real fodder to be had in the bad reporting by Katie Way at Babe dot net (the reporter who wrote the Aziz Ansari article with Grace as a source).

The fact that THIS is the part of the thing that so many are focusing on....is part of the damned problem.

I don't care if it was reported on a goddamned napkin, scrawled out by a koala bear with a green magic marker...Grace's story is the important part.

Is anything in the story untrue? Probably not.

As such nitpicking the media outlet's additions and bends to their specific reader demographic (mentioning the wine choice, or her dress) is WELL besides the point, and worse, takes the focus off the subject.

Keep your eye on the ball.

You are wrong. If higher standards is your goal then apply it equally or don't apply it at all. Otherwise you are encouraging bad reporting for the sake of click bait which will be extremely counter productive in the long run. If you want to change the behavior of an entire generation. ( Which is what we are ultimately talking about. Parent's educating children so that in the future none of this is an issue. Regardless of the more immediate impact of revealing pedophiles and abusers. ) Then the facts of the accounts have to be correctly reported. The articles have to be written correctly.

I agree that Grace's story is correct but including nonpertant information undermines the story. While glasses of wine and an outfit are important to Grace they are not important to the story and should be left out. Including them allows for readers to see Grace as overtly superficial and clueless. Who the fuck drinks red with oysters, and I would expect her to wear a nice outfit on a date. If she wore a feed bag then she wouldn't be going out on a date with a human.

Not allowing for Aziz to confirm or deny the story or only allowing for 5 hours is bad reporting. It smacks of someone who is in a rush to get something out and get clicks and accolades rather then someone who is willing to take the time to verify all aspects of something. Look at the reporting that the Washington Post did on Moore. They verified that each girl was where she said that she was and that Moore was in the building every single time. They verified times and dates so that when people questioned their reporting they were successfully able to back up themselves.

You want shit then read the inquirer. They are right twice a decade. You want good things then be like the Washington Post and do good reporting and good writing. Edit your articles. Otherwise it will come back and lead to backlash. You win movements with well written accounts and the truth. You lose movements with poorly written shit.

I'm talking about the focus on this as opposed to the glut of the story. Jezebel...famously feminist website...didn't write a piece about the incident, they wrote about the Babe.net article and its author instead (I dunno, perhaps because they consider Aziz an ally, and can't reconcile that with what he's done?). The same is true of that hack job Banfield went off on. In a lot of cases it's overshadowing the nature of the story. That's what I'm railing against.

And it's gatekeeper news outlets that lead the charge on this focus. That's telling.

Yes, correct reporting is important. But the issues with the piece at Babe does not even get NEAR the level of scrutiny it's facing about it. It's just one more way that Grace's story is being pushed out of the spotlight by gatekeeper traditionalists.

I see MINOR issues with the piece at Babe....but nothing to get overly worked up over. The main glut of the story is present and accounted for. Any clicky-accoutrement Katie added is neither here nor there.

It is telling but not in the way you think that it is. Jezebel and the other 'gatekeeper' news outlets (don't get in that mind set it will lead you down the false news that the conservatives have gown down and that lead to Trump) are focusing on the reporting because it was substandard and then the author rather then saying that she was trying to scoop an exclusive and hurried herself and yes she should have given Aziz more time to respond and verified the date at the restaurant. Attacked anyone who questioned her writing and reporting. Personally I think that the piece needs to get more scrutiny. It was just above freshman writting. A better written article that was critically looked at would have had a better focus and left fewer room for conflicting messages. Which is what a lot of people got out of that article. You may be willing to accept an affidavit written on ' goddamned napkin, scrawled out by a koala bear with a green magic marker' but that will lead to a big time blow back and end up causing the majority of undecided people to back away from the movement. It will end up causing less women to come forward.

Also you should be ashamed of yourself for purporting conspiracy theories and for villainizing people who don't see eye to eye with you.

editted for clarity.

[QuickTidal]

Vengeance, on 18 January 2018 - 07:55 PM, said:

Also you should be ashamed of yourself for purporting conspiracy theories and for villainizing people who don't see eye to eye with you.

Conspiracy theories? Okay.

[Vengeance]

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2018 - 07:38 PM, said:

I'm talking about the focus on this as opposed to the glut of the story. Jezebel...famously feminist website...didn't write a piece about the incident, they wrote about the Babe.net article and its author instead (I dunno, perhaps because they consider Aziz an ally, and can't reconcile that with what he's done?). The same is true of that hack job Banfield went off on. In a lot of cases it's overshadowing the nature of the story. That's what I'm railing against.

What do you call the bolded and underlined above if not purporting conspiracy theories?

[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2018 - 07:38 PM, said:

I'm talking about the focus on this as opposed to the glut of the story. Jezebel...famously feminist website...didn't write a piece about the incident, they wrote about the Babe.net article and its author instead (I dunno, perhaps because they consider Aziz an ally, and can't reconcile that with what he's done?). The same is true of that hack job Banfield went off on. In a lot of cases it's overshadowing the nature of the story. That's what I'm railing against.

And it's gatekeeper news outlets that lead the charge on this focus. That's telling.

Yes, correct reporting is important. But the issues with the piece at Babe does not even get NEAR the level of scrutiny it's facing about it. It's just one more way that Grace's story is being pushed out of the spotlight by gatekeeper traditionalists.

I see MINOR issues with the piece at Babe....but nothing to get overly worked up over. The main glut of the story is present and accounted for. Any clicky-accoutrement Katie added is neither here nor there.

The thing is, many of the issues with that piece are the reason it got the reaction that it got. From Banfield and others.


Which is why amp said above that they "failed Grace". And what the Jezebel article said.

A better written presentation of the facts would be much less susceptible to the distractions you are so upset by.

And I'm not sure what you expected Jezebel to write. The victim was not their source, and the article was already out and viral. And their piece criticizing the article also made clear their position both on the incident and of the negative responses it received.

And not for nothing, but if you are in the tank to support a celebrity you consider an ally, you don't write a piece that extends the story (especially one that does not defend him), you ignore it altogether.

[Vengeance]

Nevyn, on 18 January 2018 - 09:03 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 January 2018 - 07:38 PM, said:

I'm talking about the focus on this as opposed to the glut of the story. Jezebel...famously feminist website...didn't write a piece about the incident, they wrote about the Babe.net article and its author instead (I dunno, perhaps because they consider Aziz an ally, and can't reconcile that with what he's done?). The same is true of that hack job Banfield went off on. In a lot of cases it's overshadowing the nature of the story. That's what I'm railing against.

And it's gatekeeper news outlets that lead the charge on this focus. That's telling.

Yes, correct reporting is important. But the issues with the piece at Babe does not even get NEAR the level of scrutiny it's facing about it. It's just one more way that Grace's story is being pushed out of the spotlight by gatekeeper traditionalists.

I see MINOR issues with the piece at Babe....but nothing to get overly worked up over. The main glut of the story is present and accounted for. Any clicky-accoutrement Katie added is neither here nor there.

The thing is, many of the issues with that piece are the reason it got the reaction that it got. From Banfield and others.


Which is why amp said above that they "failed Grace". And what the Jezebel article said.

A better written presentation of the facts would be much less susceptible to the distractions you are so upset by.

And I'm not sure what you expected Jezebel to write. The victim was not their source, and the article was already out and viral. And their piece criticizing the article also made clear their position both on the incident and of the negative responses it received.

And not for nothing, but if you are in the tank to support a celebrity you consider an ally, you don't write a piece that extends the story (especially one that does not defend him), you ignore it altogether.

It is the same that the news did with Buzzfeed when they reported the Steele Dossier. You report the report to protect you from lawsuits. It is a result of a unverified article. In the case of the Steele dossier it has taken a long time for it to be verified. In the case of Gracie she wasn't their source and since the article was so poorly done nobody wanted to go out and do anything until Aziz verified it himself. This could have been avoided with better reporting.

[worry]

It's fair enough to say that an amateurish reporter writing a story amateurishly isn't ideal -- I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, and I don't consider it "off limits" to discuss -- all QT is saying is get a little perspective. Not even necessarily aimed at boarders here, but people with awful takes in general. Like, of all the facets of this story, the quality of the writing is probably among the most minor. And the fact that people are grasping at that minutiae, instead of addressing the big picture stuff, in order to write/publish this glut of godforsaken "The #MeToo Movement is being tarnished" takes is gross. That's not what Jezebel did per se -- though in reaching for nuance so imperfectly they kinda gave breathing room to the creeps and clueless Boomers trivializing the story, Ashleigh Banfield among them. It's not a conspiracy theory to speculate that like for a lot of people, as the Aziz/Grace scenario is hitting people closer to home for a lot of reasons, writers for Jezebel aren't excluded from that.

[Nevyn]

But again, the point that brought this topic up was that an amateurish article CAUSED the "bad takes".

[worry]

And again, that's a bad point. That's not the cause-effect pattern here at all.

People are already seeking reasons to push back against the #MeToo movement and this has been a convenient story, largely because of the way it makes so many people uncomfortable. The amateurish writing was a bonus. Pundits, op/ed pages, cable news -- they're always looking for a "both sides are extreme" middle position, even when that middle position is tenuous or outright stupid and wrong. Boomers are looking for their "millennials can't do anything right, so inevitably this situation got messy and she overreacted" angles. I'm sure it'll transition into "college campuses are havens for PC run amok" takes soon, if it hasn't already. And of course there are those who are hostile to the #MeToo movement in the first place at the heart of it, with these other dopes falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Edit: Didn't mean to sound overly abrupt about it, up top. I just don't see the original article -- flaws and all -- as the "cause" of any of this fakey hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing in the media. Seems to me the sharks were already circling for that first hint of blood.

This post has been edited by worry: 18 January 2018 - 10:03 PM

[Nevyn]

worry, on 18 January 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

And again, that's a bad point. That's not the cause-effect pattern here at all.

People are already seeking reasons to push back against the #MeToo movement and this has been a convenient story, largely because of the way it makes so many people uncomfortable. The amateurish writing was a bonus. Pundits, op/ed pages, cable news -- they're always looking for a "both sides are extreme" middle position, even when that middle position is tenuous or outright stupid and wrong. Boomers are looking for their "millennials can't do anything right, so inevitably this situation got messy and she overreacted" angles. I'm sure it'll transition into "college campuses are havens for PC run amok" takes soon, if it hasn't already. And of course there are those who are hostile to the #MeToo movement in the first place at the heart of it, with these other dopes falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

I disagree. We'll leave it there.

Some pushback was inevitable, but the degree of it, the nature of it, and the degree to which it resonated are all at least partly failings of how the story was told.

[worry]

I don't think we disagree 100%, and I don't distrust most people here on the board from being able to discern nuance or set priority. But just imagine the entire right wing media machine referring to the Grace article now as "fake news", using Ashleigh Banfield's monologues and the "Aziz isn't a mind reader" article as cover, and see if that doesn't send a chill up your spine. Cuz -- and I don't mean to speak for him, this is my reading -- I think that's what QT is getting at. These hacks are generating minor-point takes on marginal aspects of the issue, and it is giving an inch to people who will take a mile and run with it.

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 18 January 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

I don't think we disagree 100%, and I don't distrust most people here on the board from being able to discern nuance or set priority. But just imagine the entire right wing media machine referring to the Grace article now as "fake news", using Ashleigh Banfield's monologues and the "Aziz isn't a mind reader" article as cover, and see if that doesn't send a chill up your spine. Cuz -- and I don't mean to speak for him, this is my reading -- I think that's what QT is getting at. These hacks are generating minor-point takes on marginal aspects of the issue, and it is giving an inch to people who will take a mile and run with it.

Yep.

[Morgoth]

worry, on 18 January 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

I don't think we disagree 100%, and I don't distrust most people here on the board from being able to discern nuance or set priority. But just imagine the entire right wing media machine referring to the Grace article now as "fake news", using Ashleigh Banfield's monologues and the "Aziz isn't a mind reader" article as cover, and see if that doesn't send a chill up your spine. Cuz -- and I don't mean to speak for him, this is my reading -- I think that's what QT is getting at. These hacks are generating minor-point takes on marginal aspects of the issue, and it is giving an inch to people who will take a mile and run with it.

I shouldn't disagree with you because otherwise I'll be in support of the alt-right? Is that the stand you're taking here?

[worry]

No, that is not the stand I'm taking.