Quibi’s CEO Meg Whitman Compared Reporters to Sexual Predators
theinformation.com
theinformation.com
I suspect if the quote was as damning as it is being made out to be, it would be included.
Totally fair not to believe the article. I do, because if it didn't happen then Quibi would have said so in their response (they didn't - it's a classic denial-non-denial). But even if you don't, credible journalism doesn't use exact quotes all the time.
She compared how reporters develop a friendly rapport with sources to how sexual predators “groom” children they’re targeting, the two people said. The term ‘grooming’ has been used by child safety advocates to describe how predators gain trust with their victims. Whitman’s comments upset some Quibi employees who described them as strange and off-putting.
That's it. She used the word "grooming," and then some commentary from third-parties about grooming being used to describe sexual predators. Except it's also been used to describe, you know, cultivating a contact. It's an old idiom. Additional context could further strengthen the assertion that this was meant to be related to sexual predators, except "journalists are like sexual predators" isn't being described as having been said.
As to a non-denial denial: "This reporting from The Information is materially inaccurate" is a moderately strong denial from a PR hack.
You're free to extrapolate from that as much as you like, but it just isn't there. There's no meaningful amount of information to conclude what she meant in one direction or another. I think given the incentives of the media outlet to generate controversy, it's safe to assume that if this is the most smoke they could generate, there likely isn't any fire.
From a psychological perspective she’s probably right. The results sought are obviously quite different.
That's just way too distant psychology wise. Generally the implication of the adult and child situation is some sort of distinct power advantage the adult has.
> It is only a shocking new #MeToo memoir by one of his victims, Vanessa Springora–seduced by Matzneff when she was 13, and he almost 50–that has prodded French conscience on the question of sexual consent to a point of no return.
But about the term generally:[1]
> As the issue of sexual predation in the workplace has become increasingly prominent, there are calls to provide employees with special training to minimize this behavior in the future.
0) https://www.forbes.com/sites/tamarathiessen/2020/01/21/gabri...
1) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-the-criminal-...
I think plenty of folks out there are leaking information because they want to. I doubt many qualify as a "con".
Maybe if the bos "Meg" comes to them and knows about it they claim they were conned, but these are adults, I don't think the situation is that much of a mystery to them.
I remember there was a couple of similar incidents issue while in HP, so she's been burnt before.
Edit: added a couple of words for clarity
Considering the politics at HP and all the crazy things that happened, I'm not sure journalists were were even required to get less than positive news out of HP. Plenty of folks inside HP playing games there before and after she left.
Childrens’ minds have not fully developed yet, and are vulnerable to adults exerting power over them.
Apples and Oranges. This argument is an example of sophistry: clever, but totally incorrect. Don’t be taken in by it.
The crime that is grooming a child using a power imbalance has nothing to do whatsoever with the voluntary interaction between a member of the press and their adult source.
How is "power" objectively measured to compute whether consent is violated or not? To use a trite example, older wealthy middlingly-attractive gentleman and younger much poorer but very attractive woman? What about boss and secretary? What if the latter results in a stable marriage? (I know of at least one such...) What if it is (to stir the pot further) the Mary Kay Letourneau- Vili Fualaau marriage?
The reason why I ask is that while I believe that in principle, the concept of consent exists, it seems to me that applying it in practice is fraught with things such as fallacious appeals to disgust, belief-infused moral prognostications/judgments and whatnot, and it's just occurred to me that a large part of the difficulty may simply be how to objectively evaluate every consensual exchange to see if consent has been violated or not. Perhaps a framework already exists for just such a need... just throwing this out there.
But aside from that people get manipulated through cons to give consent where they might not. (Fraudulent marriages, etc.)
Navigating power structures and circumstances might be one of the defining characteristics of adulthood, quite actually.
Most importantly, adults are capable of informed, intelligent consent. Children are not.
Well, unless it's a sex change, then apparently they can consent. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Or if it's two 14 year olds, they can apparently consent with each other, but not with an 18 year old...
What's not well known is that its focus was newspaper reporting, which it basically characterized as "gossip".
0) https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priv...
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
It would be helpful if the article actually included the comment. Instead, it's hard to discuss at all, since it's a very hollow story.
—James Baldwin, "Dark Days" [1]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXOG9yNRjxk
The idea of using a camera's extended sensory capabilities to create new video viewing experiences is quite exciting.
But Quibi feels high risk. Even with old masters such as Spielberg at the helm, asking consumers in the age of TikTok to pay for a four minute film seems worthy of scrutiny ;)
I also think the short, serial stories by prolific and talented people is a good idea, assuming there are a lot of episodes and they release frequently. I’d hoped for more of that on YouTube.
I don’t think Quibi will be the service providing these feature in five years though.
But I find the rhetoric and severity of the language used extremely disheartening. So many folks willing to throw such vitriol towards people and things it feels like folks want to race towards the only valid information is that are those echoing in our heads...
I think I saw that link and honestly misread the title and figured it was a story about fake beef and moved on... maybe that says something too.
With regards to reporting, it is probably worse lately than in past years what with the rather severe need to twist things into clickbait to get ad dollars instead of being boringly sincere.
Talking to journalists is vanity, and that's how many reporters justify obtaining peoples trust and then betraying it. Personally, I thought quite a few journalists I met were actuated by a kind of sadism, where to bait and smite people they envied was something they really enjoyed. Comparing this trap setting mentality to a perversion is not as far a leap as it might seem. The lunatics who threaten and harass them are no better, but the whole thing is a seedy enterprise. Whitman is right to caution staff about them.
Anyone who has had their reputation harmed by having a quote taken out of context and used to drive a writers narrative can attest to this. Journalism as a story form relies on conflict, and preying on vanity to draw people into conflict is literally the game.