Hacker News Reader

Comment by supergirl | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what's the connection, if any, between the author of the article and Gawker. If he's the same guy I found on Linkedin, he seems to be working for some kind of PR company for hire; also confirmed by the article footnote. I hope nobody takes this article only for what it is but also questions why it is.

View on HN

Following that rabbit hole, the author seems to be this person: http://www.startegix.com/about.html

The first five things in the list of things his company does are: "Public Relations, Media Relations, Press Material Creation, Marketing Communications, Brand Positioning".

It appears that Reuters is running unmarked advertising for Gawker or some other client with similar interests. Lovely.

What I find more disturbing and ethically questionable is the that many of the news outlets blasting Thiel have major conflicts of interest that are rarely being disclosed.

For an example of how media is connected to Gawker, take a look at the disclosure for this Slate article http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/05/...

" Disclosure: One Slate editor is married to a Gawker editor. One is married to a lawyer who represented Gawker in the Hulk Hogan trial. One is a former Gawker Media executive editor. None of these Slate staffers worked on this story.

That is three editors who actually have a direct financial impact from the Gawker case. Even if they did not personally work on the story, the fact that a co-worker and likely friend's spouse is going to lose their job would be likely to color your objectivity.

Kudos to Slate for at least some disclosure. Note that by not stating who these people actually are, they leave open that although the person may not have worked on the story, one of those editors might be the boss of one or more people working on the story.

My guess is that if you looked at a lot of the coverage that has been blasting Peter Thiel, you will find a lot of conflicts of interest that are not being disclosed.

Good catch!

Even if so, I'd rather move beyond the Ad hominem.

It's not an ad hominem, because the article isn't making an argument, and someone questioning his motives isn't saying he's wrong because of his motives.

The article is making an argument (Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons) and, regardless of the author's motives or background, I analyze his arguments.

Claiming "isn't saying he's wrong because of his motives" is just reinforcing what I'm trying to say.

The author defends Gawker by stating, "But at least Gawker did this openly." If he is working for Gawker, that is very relevant to his argument.

That's not an argument, that's a statement. If it were an argument (in the sense that a fallacy like ad hominem applies), he would have a set of premises and a conclusion. Also, the comment we're talking about would have to directly state, "BECAUSE he has ties to Gawker, he is THEREFORE wrong" which is not at all what the above comment is saying.

Furthermore, no one is claiming the article is wrong because the author has ties to Gawker. The claim isn't, "Because the author has ties to Gawker, he is therefore wrong", the claim is, "Because he has ties to Gawker, his premises may be biased."

Also, you can't analyze the author's "arguments" because he doesn't provide one.

Pointing out that a source is likely not impartial because they are a professional PR specialist is hardly an ad hominem.

From the author's page: "Keith uses the power of strategic communications along with his experience as a lawyer and company co-founder to secure maximum leverage for his clients. His individual and team recognitions include the PR News Award for Outstanding Media Exposure (Business Development); The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences Webby Award Official Honoree; and the American Bar Association Award of Excellence (for writing). Keith is based in New York City."

Granted, correlation is not causation and it's theoretically possible for the good Mr. Emmer to have a long standing interest in journalistic freedom. (A cursory Googling of his name and the obvious keywords shows no evidence of such history.) But would anyone here care to bet much money on it?

In fairness, his opinion is probably consistent with the views of the editors at Reuters.

Ad hominem is when "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." [1]. This clearly seems to fit. Ad hominem is not always a fallacy: if there were some new facts presented, or if the argument was so complicated that you couldn't evaluate its validity yourself (like happens often in science and other technical fields), then the source of the argument would be relevant. Neither of those is true in this case. The article's argument isn't very convincing to me on its own merits, but I don't see how it's made worse by the fact that the author may have been paid to write it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem isn't always irrelevant. You would expect a journalist to defend an organization that employs many journalists and it's useful to keep that into account, as it reduces the ratio between the (conditional probability that the journalist will argue for that position given that the position is true) and (conditional probability that the journalist will argue for that position given that the position is false).

I wonder what's the connection, if any, between the author of the article and Gawker. I'm going to warn you: if you apply this pattern of thinking in all sorts of spheres of life you're going to lose a lot of friends.

I would rather lose friends than have untrustworthy influences in my life.

Same here. But what I'm implying is that we've been fooled into believing untrustworthy people as trustworthy, and identifying some of those people as untrustworthy will get you in hot water.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com