Dr. V's magical putter

[YankeeFan]

Gregg Doyel ‏@GreggDoyelCBS

The guy's story led a person to commit suicide. I'm just. I can't.

As a reporter, you find out you have hounded a subject into suicide. And so you write the story ANYWAY? OK, I'm done. Losing it here.

 

[YankeeFan]

Caleb Hannan admits to outing Dr. V's transgendered status to at least one person in the article.

I'm left wondering how many other people did he out her to? Will he tell us? Will anyone ask him?

 

[old_tony]

Interesting

http://mariadahvanaheadley.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/sinatras-cold-is-contagious-hostile-subjects-vulnerable-sources-the-ethics-of-outing/

I found the story offensive. The writer caused someone to commit suicide over a putter. A putter that worked by the way.

A putter.

So if you discover someone is perpetrating a fraud you should not uncover that fraud, because doing so might cause the person to react negatively?

"The writer caused someone to commit suicide" is just utterly bizarre to me. A person running a scam on people got discovered and offed herself before he even wrote the story -- after a previous suicide attempt failed. Should she just be left alone to run the scam in perpetuity, because pointing out that she's a fraud might make her sad?

Scam and fraud are awfully strong and strange ways to describe something that actually worked.

She invented a putter. It worked.

She invented a back story. It wasn't the backstory that made the putter work. The putter did what it was supposed to. Whom did she defraud?

It wasn't like the putter doesn't exist or isn't in use or some magical unicorn. A person can go buy one, right now, if they want.

Let's flip the script. You're writing about an inventor. The person says here are the ground rules, write about the invention and not about me. You agree. In the course of the reporting you discover that the inventor had created a new identity and fudged her credentials.

The invention works but you pursue the inventor. Because now you have a Story.

You track down the inventor's former family and associates. Reveal the person's identity, location, what they are doing to at least one of them.

The inventor, who escaped an abusive relationship, is tracked down by her ex-husband and killed.

Are you culpable in the woman's death?

After the inventor is dead, do you go ahead and write the story anyway?

George O'Leary won football games and represented himself as a football coach. Oh, the horrors! Right?

 

[YankeeFan]

ESPN really has its ducks in a row.

KVV agrees that the article "might be the best I've read this month"

Jones is defending, and lashing out at anyone who is criticizing it.

And, the best MacGregor can muster is to see it as a "Good opportunity for a bunch of us to argue craft and best practices."

 

[Songbird]

Hannan broke his word to Dr. V, but Dr. V forced his hand by lying to him. A promise based on deceit is hardly a promise at all. No one can fault Hannan for that. However, his focus on, and treatment of, her gender was thoroughly disgusting.

This was a good read: http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2014/01/18/caleb-hannan-gender-identity-and-journalistic-ethics

So I'll ask this: Where are the editors or ESPN legal in a story like this? Hannan did great reporting. Reporter's chops. But *someone* had to have edited it, right? Were there discussions by higher-up editors? Legal?

 

[Key]

Are people suggesting this wasn't worthy of a story? Or that it should have been spiked?

 

[YankeeFan]

Are people suggesting this wasn't worthy of a story? Or that it should have been spiked?

Is that the choice? This article, as reported, and written, or no article?

Do you believe it's "the tale of a troubled man"?

Do you believe it should have been framed where her gender is equated with the lies regarding her education and work credentials? Should the author have outed her to her investor?

And, should the story have been written so that the big reveal is that, She's a man baby!

 

[Songbird]

I got it: Hannan was used as a pawn by the golf industry to out Dr. V into suicide so it could steal her recipe.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Hannan broke his word to Dr. V, but Dr. V forced his hand by lying to him. A promise based on deceit is hardly a promise at all. No one can fault Hannan for that. However, his focus on, and treatment of, her gender was thoroughly disgusting.

This was a good read: http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2014/01/18/caleb-hannan-gender-identity-and-journalistic-ethics

So I'll ask this: Where are the editors or ESPN legal in a story like this? Hannan did great reporting. Reporter's chops. But *someone* had to have edited it, right? Were there discussions by higher-up editors? Legal?

I'm sure the ESPN ombud will weigh in on this any day now.

Also, good stuff on Gangrey about it.

http://gangrey.com/?p=5260

 

[BDC99]

Are people suggesting this wasn't worthy of a story? Or that it should have been spiked?

Do you believe it's "the tale of a troubled man"?

Yes. And you're one sick individual if your take from that story is that the writer took glee in outing this woman. A chill ran up his spine because he knew he was in deep **** when that Pandora's Box was opened. Her being transgendered was not the con, but it's the part she didn't want revealed. The con, as others have said, was using false information to secure investors and build a putter that might or might not have worked. The author indicates that he made a few more putts than usual because her BS story gave him confidence in the club. And as anyone who has played golf knows, confidence is a big part of it. The writer had no choice but to reveal the fraud. Well, he could have just squashed the story, but I don't see how a journalist could justify that. And I'm sure he's sick about even working on this story and finding out this information.

 

[BDC99]

Hannan broke his word to Dr. V, but Dr. V forced his hand by lying to him. A promise based on deceit is hardly a promise at all. No one can fault Hannan for that. However, his focus on, and treatment of, her gender was thoroughly disgusting.

This was a good read: http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2014/01/18/caleb-hannan-gender-identity-and-journalistic-ethics

So I'll ask this: Where are the editors or ESPN legal in a story like this? Hannan did great reporting. Reporter's chops. But *someone* had to have edited it, right? Were there discussions by higher-up editors? Legal?

I'm sure the ESPN ombud will weigh in on this any day now.

Also, good stuff on Gangrey about it.

http://gangrey.com/?p=5260

From a commenter on the above link, this is pretty much where I line up on this:

Here, I think Caleb made the correct call. This subject was financially benefitting off others. An investor gave her $60,000 to make these golf clubs, in large part because Dr. V claimed to be an accomplished aerospace engineer with a degree from M.I.T. So Caleb looks into her background, and what he finds is disturbing, and the result of the pursuit is disturbing. But the initial choice to fact-check her background is correct.

 

[old_tony]

Hannan broke his word to Dr. V, but Dr. V forced his hand by lying to him. A promise based on deceit is hardly a promise at all. No one can fault Hannan for that. However, his focus on, and treatment of, her gender was thoroughly disgusting.

This was a good read: http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2014/01/18/caleb-hannan-gender-identity-and-journalistic-ethics

So I'll ask this: Where are the editors or ESPN legal in a story like this? Hannan did great reporting. Reporter's chops. But *someone* had to have edited it, right? Were there discussions by higher-up editors? Legal?

What could they possibly need ESPN legal for? Was the trans-sexual revelation not true?

 

[Songbird]

Don't know, thinking aloud.

Also, Dr. V committed suicide 3 months ago and the story is just now running? Something strange about this story.

 

[BDC99]

Don't know, thinking aloud.

Also, Dr. V committed suicide 3 months ago and the story is just now running? Something strange about this story.

Seems that the author STILL doesn't know the answers to some of the questions he unlocked. And that is probably why the story is just now running. They were going over it for legal issues and to be sure they felt comfortable running it.

 

[buckweaver]

Here's something else that turns me off about this story:

Hannan spent eight months working on this story, diving into her financial history, her personal history, her previous suicide attempt, etc. ... clearly doing a TON of background research on her as a person ... and yet he either didn't do any research on transgender people or, worse, he didn't care enough to learn how to write properly about a trans woman. (PROTIP: Use she/her as pronouns, not he/him — that's the very, very least you can do.) Hannan didn't even do that much.

http://www.autostraddle.com/dr-v-is-dead-caleb-hannan-is-celebrated-why-we-cant-accept-lazy-transmisogynistic-journalism-218408/

And then, as the linchpin of the piece, he writes “What began as a story about a brilliant woman with a new invention had turned into a tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself. Yet the biggest question remained unanswered: Had Dr. V created a great golf club or merely a great story?”

“A tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself.”

A troubled man.

Just like that, Hannan did what so many people do: he called into question the reality of Dr. V’s gender as if her being trans was as suspect as her missing degrees, engaging in the deplorable and time-honored practice of depicting trans* people, and especially trans women, as duplicitous and deceitful.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Here's something else that turns me off about this story:

Hannan spent eight months working on this story, diving into her financial history, her personal history, her previous suicide attempt, etc. ... clearly doing a TON of background research on her as a person ... and yet he either didn't do any research on transgender people or, worse, he didn't care enough to learn how to write properly about a trans woman. (PROTIP: Use she/her as pronouns, not he/him — that's the very, very least you can do.) Hannan didn't even do that much.

http://www.autostraddle.com/dr-v-is-dead-caleb-hannan-is-celebrated-why-we-cant-accept-lazy-transmisogynistic-journalism-218408/

And then, as the linchpin of the piece, he writes “What began as a story about a brilliant woman with a new invention had turned into a tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself. Yet the biggest question remained unanswered: Had Dr. V created a great golf club or merely a great story?”

“A tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself.”

A troubled man.

Just like that, Hannan did what so many people do: he called into question the reality of Dr. V’s gender as if her being trans was as suspect as her missing degrees, engaging in the deplorable and time-honored practice of depicting trans* people, and especially trans women, as duplicitous and deceitful.

But look at the specific wording. Is he wrong? "A troubled man who had invented a new life for himself." That new life was as a woman. It seems to me to be a perfectly accurate description. I understand the complaint if Hannan refers to Dr. V as "he" once Dr. V was Dr. V, but Stephen the married father was quite definitely a "he" before there was a transformation.

One thing that's frustrating for me: really, the transgender part is a fairly minor part of the story here, but it's sort of being hijacked as the lynchpin of the piece. Perhaps Hannan made more of it than he should have, but to me it's an interesting but in the end a less-than-defining part of what was at work here.

 

[BDC99]

One thing that's frustrating for me: really, the transgender part is a fairly minor part of the story here, but it's sort of being hijacked as the lynchpin of the piece. Perhaps Hannan made more of it than he should have, but to me it's an interesting but in the end a less-than-defining part of what was at work here.

I agree, but since it's more than likely the reason she killed herself, that will naturally be the focus of the criticism. He was wrong to out her to the investor, but I think he used that anecdote to illustrate that most of the people who had met her weren't too surprised when they found out.

 

[YankeeFan]

I agree, but since it's more than likely the reason she killed herself, that will naturally be the focus of the criticism. He was wrong to out her to the investor, but I think he used that anecdote to illustrate that most of the people who had met her weren't too surprised when they found out.

The investor was surprised. He thought she was a striking woman.

He just took the news calmly, instead of collapsing into a fit of giggles, which the author thought was odd.

 

[buckweaver]

But look at the specific wording. Is he wrong? "A troubled man who had invented a new life for himself." That new life was as a woman. It seems to me to be a perfectly accurate description. I understand the complaint if Hannan refers to Dr. V as "he" once Dr. V was Dr. V, but Stephen the married father was quite definitely a "he" before there was a transformation.

The whole point of being transgender is that she was never a "he" on the inside.

So yes, in writing about a trans woman as a "troubled man," Hannan's phrase is wrong. Regardless of any other deceptions or frauds committed by Dr. V, which are all fair game, that description is completely inaccurate.

And Hannan, who did so much research and spent so much time on this story, should really have known better. Or his editors should have. From a journalism perspective, that's unacceptable.

 

[JayFarrar]

I'm not a golfer, so can someone explain magical thinking to me?

I see it as normal, rational golfers (duffers or pros) believing any piece of equipment will radically improve their game and, when they put they piece of equipment into action, their games actually get better?

I get people who believe in luck but that belief doesn't change outcomes.

But for golf it does?

You tell a guy who missed 6 out of 10 putts that "this putter" is science and will make you putt better and he turns around and makes 8 out of 10, or makes all of them or still misses six but "believes" his putting is better and therefore the putter is "better."

Does golf an unusually large number of flim flam artists out there? All kinds of snake oil salesmen pitching bull****?

I really don't know.

I'd also like to know the editing process on this piece. It took eight months and as noted on some of the other blog posts linked here, he didn't do any research into trans issues?