CNN Warns It May Expose An Anonymous Critic If He Ever Again Publishes Bad Content (theintercept.com)

New submitter evolutionary writes: CNN appears to be giving veiled threats at a Reddit user who posted critical comments about the media giant. After an apology was given by the Reddit user (possibly under fear upon discovering CNN had his identity), CNN stated: "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." The story stems around Trump's July 2nd tweet, which includes a video showing him wrestle and takedown someone with a photoshopped CNN logo on their head. The video was accompanied by the hashtags #FraudNewsCNN and #FNN. CNN reportedly tracked down the Reddit user who claimed credit for the tweet and announced they would not publicize the user's identity since they issued a lengthy public apology, promised not to repeat the behavior, and claimed status as a private citizen. However, as The Intercept reports, "the network explicitly threatened that it could change its mind about withholding the user's real name if this behavior changes in the future: 'CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolo's name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.'"

Comments

Seems reasonable, actually

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy admitted to them he's a troll, and asked them not to publish his real name because of the potential negative impact his trolling would have on his real life. They said ok, but if you start trolling again we may not be willing to withhold your name.

What's the better option? What they did, or publish and be damned (with probably at least a bunch of harassment for the guy), or withhold the name but not tell him they might publish in future if he keeps it up? I think they chose a reasonable course.

Re:Seems reasonable, actually

[Charlotte]

Why should CNN have this power?

We all have this power. If someone says something racist to you at a bar, you can record him and publish it with his real name on the youtubes. But should you?

I agree that CNN should not be the gatekeeper of free speech on the internet. But I think this points to a more basic problem: when do you "out" someone's personal details? Is it enough for someone newsworthy to retweet you for your personal life to be up for grabs?

I think that it would have been better if CNN had simply said: "This person's details are not newsworthy, so we have anonymised him". My gut feeling (could be wrong) is that this comment was not put past an editor who could weigh in. Another reason could be that CNN does not have an appropriate policy in place to avoid internet shaming, and that the writer acted on his own gut feeling to do so.

In any case, this should make us think about such a policy....

Re:Seems reasonable, actually

[ilsaloving]

Why shouldn't they have the power? They were a victim of his trolling, which basically was libel and slander.

But maybe you're right. They should have just published his name and be done with it. That way all the people affected by his other racist remarks could also seek redress.

The only thing I find annoying is that I wish they would go after Trump with the same enthusiasm as they went after some random no-account internet troll. Trump is literally reshaping the reality of US with his words. I remember "Fake News" used to mean "News that was fabricated, with maybe a sprinkle of facts to give it legitimacy". Now it means "Anything Trump doesn't like". And a disturbing number of people haven't even noticed the change.