Comment by zzalpha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zzalpha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The "witch hunt" is real and fueled by the internet, misinformation, playing on emotions, and outrage.

It's not a witch hunt if it actually happened. It's just news.

Is it perhaps the case that the media are now doggedly rooting out this kind of thing in SV because it's pushing page views? Sure. But why does that matter? These incidents are real, and it's about time the silence was broken about it.

Is the media, itself, immune to this kind of thing? Obviously not. Fox News provides ample examples. But, again, why is that relevant in this specific context? Does it make Calbeck's actions less serious? Should the media not pursue these very real stories? Should the victims keep silent?

I'm just trying to understand the thrust of your comment, here... because I honestly don't see where you're going with this. It strikes me as mud slinging just to make sure everyone looks equally dirty, in order to somehow minimize what folks like Caldbeck have done.

> It's not a witch hunt if it actually happened

It can be. Take the case of Nobel prize winning scientist Tim Hunt who was excoriated online and off and later resigned for comments he in a speech made about woman in science.

Those comments actually happened, but later a full transcript of his speech revealed them to be just a rather poor joke amid comments praising women in science, and were not representative of his actual views and actions over the course of his career.

Then there was the Rosetta mission scientist who caught flak for wearing a risqué tshirt, which actually happened, but the outcry was far disproportionate to the crime especially as it was later revealed that the shirt was given to him in the first place by a female friend.

So it is possible for witch hunts to occur even for things that 'actually happened'

You're arguing a technicality regarding one pithy sentence in my comment.

Caldbeck sexually harassed women. Period. He confessed to it. He's now being sued for it.

This is not, in any way, shape, or form, anything remotely resembling a "witch hunt". It's literally the opposite of that, in that the person being accused of the crime is guilty of said crime.

> You're arguing a technicality regarding one pithy sentence in my comment.

You're right. My comment was nothing about the case involving Caldbeck, in fact, my entire point was to call out that pithy comment because I don't think it's something that is generally true (even if it might be true in this case).

Similarly concerning about cries of "witch hunts" in the media is that the term originated when a powerful group assaulted individuals with little power to distract from their own shortcomings, injuring or killing them in the process.

That metaphor is problematic in the case of the founder of a company facing charges of employee sexual harassment. At worst, let's use "sensationalist" or "disingenuous" coverage.

When this blew up a few days ago, it spread quick. It most certainly didn't start sensationalist... it was a story posted late Friday on the NYT... a story told before.

What was different this time is people started naming names. I know myself I was having a lot of conversations with people about the story... mostly because everybody who's been on the harassment of of it, and the names name are names of people who we know as the people who funded the companies of folks we know.

So sure, there was auxiliary outlets fanning the flames. But that happens for lots of stories and gets forgotten quickly.

So instead of calling it sensationalist... I'd say it was a big story. Some parties named directly came out and confirmed and apologized (McClure). The "fake news" / "sensationalist" claim is not holding water with me since it wants to discredit the story but does not do it on the basis of facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com