This is a story about a golf putter and its inventor, that's probably mostly of interest to golfers, and also a story about journalistic ethics and appropriateness in dealing with personal and sensitive information, which is - or should be - of interest to all of us, living as we do in a world where so much of the information we receive is filtered through the media.
So, read this article: Dr. V's Magical Putter, which appeared on a site called Grantland that is a repository for sports and pop culture news.
Then read this response, "What Grantland Got Wrong," written by an ESPN baseball analyst
Then read this response to the response, written by Bill Simmons, who is the editor in chief of Grantland and also a writer for ESPN Page 2 (often known there as The Sports Guy)
Then I'm curious to know: Do you think this story should have been published? What, if anything, were the inappropriate actions taken by the Grantland reporter/editors? Did Grantland make the right decision to leave the story up as a reminder of a lesson learned rather than to take it down in acknowledgment of a mistake and avoid any further dissemination of the story? Are any errors that occurred mitigated by Grantland's decision to leave the story up and freely acknowledge their mistakes? In a world where so much of what so many people do is made fully public on Facebook, Instagram, etc., is personal information fair game or is there a zone of privacy that should still be protected?
For full discussion credit for the week, your response must indicate that you read all three articles and have a working knowledge of the issues in question.
-- Edited by MrsCavalluzzi on Wednesday 22nd of January 2014 06:58:11 PM
__________________
Lego, Cav (the Lego brand name was derived from the Danish expression "leg godt" - play well - and lego also translates in Latin as "I study" or "I put together"...really, one of the world's most perfect words!)
Seeing as Dr. V asked for his anonymity to be kept, I think that releasing this article was wrong. It gives a great insight into the making of the Oracle putter, but Dr. V's plea should have been kept.
The oracle putter sounds like a wonderful creation, but being that i've seen happy gilmore i can't keep thinking about the scene, "just find your happy place." All in all, wonderful read.
Dr. V asked for one thing, that her idenity and any other information that was senistive to her be kept a secret. The Grantland reporter violated this one request, which is wrong, since she gave them a great insight into her invention of the oracle putter. Its harder to kept information kept a secret in the internet age, but these reporters should have kept their promise to Dr. V.
Dr. V's gender and sexuality had nothing to do with the putter she created. It is fine to discredit her based on her claimed background and knowledge but not to out her for a piece which has to do with golf. I don't think the article should be left up on the website because it comes off as cruel and uncalled for. Although a lot of information is made public on social media websites, Dr V. clearly wanted her identity kept secret and the reporter violated that.
its no surprise that Dr. V's identity was released cause after all its the media and they will do anything to get a story its just sad how little you can trust people
Today, nothing is hidden anymore. It is easier to find out information, and at any time we want to. Therefore, if Dr. V wanted to be anonymous, that was fine, but he should have known that eventually something would happen... Reporters find out everything.
I believe that despite the publication after Dr. V's death the site should just remove the article. Outing Dr. V in the first place to one of her investors was already bad enough. The piece should not have deviated at all from its original purpose which was to explain the purpose and history of the magical putter. Instead, Hannan's piece solely focuses on the identity of the inventor. I understand that it is good to provide readers with some background but Hannan went too far.