The story is 'maker of putter does not have credentials they claim'.

'not maker of putter is transgender' ('gross').


The first is a clear public interest story. Anyone interested in buying a putter has an interest in knowing the factual information about their product is accurate. The second, while maybe still interesting to people, is potentially criminal. Hate crime, invasion of privacy, as possible charges.

The disclosure of unnecessary and unsolicited information goes far beyond the journalistic scope of the writer's original inquiry: a feature article on a zany golf putter that some industry celebrities liked.


Edit: Again. The journalist can easily established that Vanderbilt has made false claims. But the additional information uncovered, does not add to (serve) the public interest. For example - if the manufacturer had offered various golf products in the past under different names and investors never recovered their money its immediately relevant to the story.

A comparable example might be how Courts can seal the record of juveniles who commit crimes, on the assumption that it could material damage their future opportunities. Here Vanderbilt believed her personal history could negatively impact here life, both in her career and otherwise. Hannan should have respected those wishes unless he could convincingly prove there was a strong public interest in doing otherwise.

Okay, so if we're Bill, we run the story, edit out the stuff about her personal life that isn't business behavior, and assume no further responsibility for anything that ensues?

I dunno. It strikes me that when you're a fraud who went out and sought a Q-rating boost for your con (that's an ungenerous interpetation, but I'm sure she couldn't beat whatever appropriate charges might be filed, it's normal to expect that certain other interesting but impertinent secrets might be dragged out into the light - often whoever the subject happens to be plowing, which is often a way people are involuntarily outed. I'm not saying that's cool as a practice, but it seems no more or less cool than, say, reporting not that she was transgendered but was having a crazy affair with someone else in the story.

There's no such thing as a "birth gender." Every person's gender is self-defined.

Being born with a penis or vagina determines your sex, not your gender.

Wasn't Liberace basically outed as being Gay after death, even after he sue'd people all the time while he was alive saying that he wasn't.

They even made a movie out of it last year that won Golden Globes

Because trans people are very often the targets of physical, sexual, and verbal harassment, and discrimination of all sorts. When you out a trans person against their wishes, you could be putting them in immediate danger and damaging their personal and professional lives.

Its true that fraud charges would still be damaging personally, but we don't know anything about how the case would proceed, or if charges would even be pressed. I don't know how the product was marketed, but it may have all been legal (meaning only the money was raised illegally).

Its entirely plausible that Vanderbilt would have been able to work things out with her investors, especially since the product was a success. Regardless of the outcome, there was no need for Hannan to unilaterally contact her investors.

You sound almost like you're saying the whole thing should be quietly swept under the rug, fraudz and all, *just* because Dr. V turned out to be transgendered, and that secret has to be *actively protected* by Grantland because of moral and social obligation. The need to decline to reinforce a stereotype which in this case happens to look like it's pretty valid trumps all other considerations? It can't just be handled more intelligently?

Hannan is an amateur journalist, not a judge. If he sees a crime in the course of his job he should report it to the relevant authority because it is his moral obligation as a citizen.

When he started talking to individual investors and actively discrediting Vanderbilt he was not acting as a journalist. He was ruining her life, and contributed to her suicide.

If his investigation was wrong he could be sued for libel, for instance. And I would not be surprised if Grantland has legal exposure on this matter.

No one has ever said that.

This might be off topic but in New Zealand (where I live) recently there was a huge outrage after a pair of radio DJs on a talkshow made statements insinuating that, a group of guys 17-22 who went around getting under-age (16 & under) girls drunk and sleeping with them, weren't entirely at fault as the girls were seemingly pretty loose to being with.
This sparked a huge backlash with woman's groups saying that this whole idea that rape is the fault of anyone but the rapist is ridiculous and insinuating that is dangerous.

Now imo this kind of reasoning that these murders are somehow the fault of anyone but the people that did it (such as say people who outed them) is dangerously close to the above situation, where people start pinning the sick actions of say one person on other people/factors.

I knew I was going to slip up somewhere - yeah, that's clearly what I meant.

Cardo: I think very obviously the problem is that there is a deception (namely all the fraudulent behavior) and something that appears to be a deception but isn't (Ms Vanderbilt's identifying herself as a woman despite being born of the male sex), and the writer treated them the same. Again, I think the thornier issue is that I don't know that society at large is quite ready for this idea - gender reassignment surgery I think people are more on board with, but just one day saying 'Hey, I'm picking a new name and calling myself a man/woman' - and so there's plenty of eggshell-walking to be done in the meantime, especially in light of the horrific abuse that these people suffer. I don't think the story is all that interesting without the reveal - person claims to have lots of advanced degrees, actually doesn't (which revelation should've been pretty clear by the ridiculous writing style she employed via email) - it'd be one of those eyeroll-worthy stories that claims to be about something but is actually more about the author than the subject, which is kinda Grantland's calling card.

I actually think you guys are focusing too much on transgender issue rather then focusing on the fact that no non-pertinent personal information should have been revealed.

its like a food critic ending their article with "...and I heard the chef cheats on his wife!"

Yeah, that's completely valid and by far the worst part of the article. Also as an aside -'golf loses a million players a year' - uh, really? Show your work maybe?

Anyway, it seems clear that if they were going to do the trans reveal, they should have been way less lazy and less bigoted about how they went about framing that fact with the wackily self-serving way she went about constructing the rest of her story. I don't recall Simmons addressing that much if at all.

I dispute the notion that there can never be an ethical outing.

It's extremely rare, but I do think it happens once in a while. The most recent example was someone outing a gay politician who campaigned and voted against gay rights.

http://gawker.com/cbs-journalist-sha...set-1494550684

This is a fairly contentious subject among the LGBT community and there's no perfect consensus. Comments on the article range from "**** that guy, definitely out him" to "Even with this guy outing him is evil".

exactly right, the inventor being a fraud is one thing, the journalist going out of his way to impart both the tone and substance of "ewww tranny" as an adjunct is not. also the entire article might have been saved if the author tried to empathize or even speculate as to the motives of what drives this Dr V's need for recognition and small-time megalomania. instead its basically a hatchet job on Dr V and craps on and on about her fraudulence and the entirely separate matter of her transgender identity without ever making a point beyond seemingly implying that her transgender sexuality is part and parcel of her fraudulence.

its just a clear violation of ethics vis-a-vis covering the public interest as opposed to private matters. the food critic reporting that the chef uses dirty 4-week-old recycled oil is public interest, that he cheats on his wife is not.

I mean the whole story has a ring of The Great Gatsby about it with a tragic anti-hero, a mysterious past, a complete reinvention, Americana, a beautiful lover, fools and a pesky reporter. It is an incredible thing that America allows a former mechanic to reinvent herself as a mad-scientist-genius cliche with full mythology and who then invents what sure seems like the world's best putter (lolgolf), and if the author wasn't a full college slappy he'd realize it.

LOL what a joke

What is relevant about the whole story in the first place, I mean is any story on a "sports/pop culture" site really necessary at all. People are saying "what did their personal life have to do with anything", well what does this story have to do with anything in the first place?
Its an interesting exposé on a personal life for entertainment purposes. Is it NEEDED? No. Does the site NEED to exist? No. Does this sub-forum NEED to exist No. and so on and so on

The media/journalists dive deep into well known peoples personal lives relentlessly and there is never this whole outrage about reporting gone too far.

Look at the Tiger Woods sex scandal for example. The guy plays golf, the fact that he was banging hookers et al out of control while married, is really no ones business at all. However it was reported on ad nauseum for almost 2 years and it pretty much ruined his life for at least a few years.
But I bet if you ask people their opinion of the journalists who broke the story they sure as **** wouldn't think their scum bags, send them death threats, or try pin his kids ruined life on them

your argument is "look, the National Inquirer outed Tiger for cheating, nothing to see here!"?

this is your bar for journalistic integrity?

journalistic integrity what an oxymoron

The entire industry is based upon outing people in one form or another and tearing people down under the guise of "public interest".

Since when is this a new thing?

It's not; we're discussing current events as illustrated in the controversy over a story on a sportswriting website called Grantland.

since blogs

Yes, this is true. It also usually starts with people taking estrogen/testosterone pills before getting their surgery.


Also, I think it's crucial to know whether she was making belly putters or not. I'll know whose side I'm on.

You really don't see the difference between these two situations?

I don't think you understand what journalism is.

What if it was a bunch of privileged black dudes opining on this matter

Or semi-privileged Pacific Islanders