Dr. V's magical putter

Admittedly I'm not up on LGBT-related issues, but when I read this piece, I thought nothing of that part. I can easily see how this got published.

It all comes back to a discussion we've had here before: it's impossible to know what is offensive to everyone everywhere at all times. For someone like me, and probably the author and editors, knowing this was going to cause a storm of controversy probably never crossed their mind. I can't begin to tell you howany words I've learned were racist or insulting to certain groups from reading this site.

 

A few things on this...

First, as far as I can tell, there is zero evidence that she committed suicide because she was going to be "outed." If there is evidence, please point me to it.

Secondly, there is no excuse for the "he/she" issues Caleb Hannan had. A competent editor should have been all over this, and apparently wasn't. That's on the editor.

Thirdly, if you build and sell a product based on false credentials, false science and a false, well-known surname, you can't be bothered about a reporter exposing that, along with other things you may have not wanted discovered about yourself. You can't pick and choose what lies get exposed. That's not how it works.

 

Cyd Zeigler from OutSports explains some things here on covering trans issues. http://www.outsports.com/2014/1/19/5326206/espn-grantland-failed-trans-community

 

The author doesn't do a very good job of telling us what his exact agreement with Dr. V was.

She was adamant from the beginning that she would agree to talk to him only if he focused on the science, and not the scientist. Now, when he discovered the issues with her past, he could have decided to write nothing. Or, maybe he decided that since she lied to him, he was no longer bound by the agreement. He does not state that.

Did he decide his agreement was no longer valid since she was dead? He doesn't say that.

And, since he had already outed her to her investor while she was alive, there's no reason to believe he was willing to keep her medical history private.

 

Agree with most that you said, but I really have an issue with your second sentence.

Even if you focus on the science, you have to check on the scientist's credentials. That's journalism 101. So, it was essentially an agreement that could not possibly be kept. The journalist and the subject shouldn't have made it. There may not have been an agreement after that, but when a subject lies as much as this one did, I think all bets are off. You don't get to make stipulations after that.

 

Journalist get lied to by sources every day.

Let me know the next time a sports journalists burns a GM or coach for lying to them, and decides that they can now discuss something that they had agreed would be confidential.

They don't. They won't. Neither will political reporters. They don't want to lose "access".

This reporter knew it was a one time story and, he had a scoop -- SHE'S A MAN BABY! -- he'd never need "access" to her again, and she had no power.

So, he outed her to colleagues, and decided he could write about what he had previously agreed would be off limits.

He did have a choice. He could have dropped the article. He could have decided that he couldn't write about the science of the club, without writing about the "scientist". But, he didn't want to. That was a choice. That was his choice.

 

YF, I'm not sure why you felt the need to clutter up the Sherman thread with your thoughts about my wrestling with this controversy. Especially since you didn't bother to do it here. (I mean, other than you being a shitty little troll.)

I'm sorry you're offended by my thinking this complex situation has more shades of gray than just black or white.

 

Hannan does all of his reporting, months-months-months, and now he comes across the fact that Dr. V is trans. It's from the point I'd like to know what happened (besides telling the $60,000 investor). Did Hannan go to his editors and talk about this killer revelation? That's what I'd like to see Simmons emphasize if/when he breaks ESPN's radio silence.

 

Just because other journalists don't hold sources that lie to them accountable doesn't mean they should.

He claims he never agreed to her "limits" on the story, even though that doesn't make much sense, because he did get further access, but he makes that claim nonetheless.

Outing her to colleagues is one thing - although I think it might be hard to discuss the whole story with sources without getting into that, because it involved a name change and other things that may have led to the topic that she was a trans woman - writing the story, after she had already committed, suicide is another.

Again, there is no evidence fear of being outed was a contributing factor in her committing suicide. Maybe fear of her business being outed as a fraud was the main factor in the suicide. We don't know.

I don't know what further damage could be done writing the entirety of her story, including her transition, after she is dead.

 

Where does he claim this?

She insists on the "science not the scientist" focus in her initial email to him. He tries to work around this by dealing with McCord, but finally decides he needs to talk directly to her, where she again sets the same ground rules.

He continues to talk to her, and accepts a putter from her. Where does he say he will not agree to her stipulations?

 

I also have to say, I think it's funny how this woman, who clearly did not seek out personal press coverage, agreed to speak with Hannan, after setting what she thought were ground rules.

She was gracious enough to take the time to discuss the putter with him, and answer his questions.

Now, when many people have questions regarding Hannan's story, he's not talking.

It's the same thing every time. The press loves to ask questions, but hates to answer them. If Hannan had half the guts of Dr. V, he'd do an interview with someone from Poynter, or someone similar.

But, I guess he's worried about potential damage to his career. I wonder if he ever dealt with someone who had similar concerns.