When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

November 12, 2010 -

Everyone loves a good rant, but Gizmodo writer Joel Johnson delivers a particularly scathing rebuke to readers and commenters who are often a little self righteous and overly personal when disagreeing with an article. The colorful verbal lashing from Johnson might be considered beyond the pale by some, though. Here's a bit from a section entitled "You Don't Get To Call Us Unprofessional," where the writer questions the readers' intelligence:

It goes like this: 1) We put up a post you don't like. 2) Rather than ignoring the post and enjoying a different post—or in the worst case deciding you do not enjoy the mix of stories of Gizmodo any longer and going somewhere else—you decide to express your dissatisfaction. 3) You accuse us of being unprofessional, typically without any clear indication by which standards of professionalism we are being judged.

To be fair, you are very stupid. When presented with something that does not match your very rigid preconceptions of what should entertain you this very second, you lash out with the all the weaponry at your disposal, spitting flechettes of feeble cruelty at the slightest provocation. If you could, when presented with your french fries on the left side of the plastic tray and not the obviously superior right side, you would reach across the counter and give the cashier's nipples a hard twist. And then call him unprofessional.

But the most disturbing part is about the author suffering a horrible trauma that he shared with readers, who later use it against him when they don't disagree with him over some story, or issue, or company:

So I was raped when I was a kid by a parent and I wrote about it. In case you're wondering: It f*cking sucked, but I'm much better, thank you.

But when I got into a scuffle with some commenters last week they decided to take something I'd written about that experience and use it to suggest to Brian Lam that I have anger issues. They were concerned for me, you see. They suggested therapy for my unresolved issues.

I do have anger issues, you dumb, cruel,, entitled, tunneled vision shit eaters. My anger issues are with you, because you are so foul, so unable to use the internet as a thoroughfare for human compassion or—Christ—even just a civil conversation. It's so far beyond your comprehension that perhaps you are rude or simply wrong that you'd dredge up something that has absolutely no bearing on—wait for it—arguments about gadgets.

Read the whole thing, and before you go off half-cocked and comment, understand that the story is about people going off half-cocked and commenting..

Posted in

Comments

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Good for him!

The sort of moronism he's attacking is the reason why 6 years ago a group of people abandoned xbox.com forums and started a community for mature people. I haven't looked back since.

It's also the reason why I finally got so fed up with half-wits on the Internet and downloaded CommentBlocker 2.0 Firefox add-on. I couldn't be happier (yes, I'm blocking Gizmodo.com comments with it).

-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Wow, that was perhaps one of the most unprofessional things I've ever read.  When you try to defend your professionalism you should do it in a professional way.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Or hold your words and say nothing. Remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

The Glenn Beck of tech journalism.

Let me know when it's time to give a shit.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

the logic in his rant is scarily similar to other rants that cry foul over the basic rules of criticism.

when he puts up a post, he is opening himself up for criticism, no matter how sophmoric or vulgar. He wants to stand on the soap box but doesn't want any tomatoes thrown at him. can't have it both ways. how does an internat journalist not get that? the fact that he's a journalist and still he doesn't get that very basic concept is the real measure of stupidity (and irony) here.

although irrelevant and inconsiderate, he also made public the facts regarding is childhood trauma. if you don't want it to be used against you, don't post anything publically that can be used against you - another basic rule that appears to be lost on this idiot.

he also had an anger attack back when the ipad got released and many techies were less than enthused. he's like on a hair trigger. but drama generates hits and so he continues to generate news on other sites and therefore still has a job. maybe not so dumb afterall, eh?

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

One of the comments best explains it for me: This kind of writer's rant best left to Facebook or Twitter, not on Gizmodo.

 

No reason to rant like that on a site story.  It only hurts the site's image.  Also, he is feeding the troll.

---------
There are only 10 types of people in this world, people who know binary and people who don't.

---------
There are only 10 types of people in this world, people who know binary and people who don't.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Beat me to it. I was going to say that the words 'Troll' and 'feeding' spring to mind.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Hey!  I might be dumb, cruel, and entitled, but my eyesight is 20/20, and I always clean the fertilizer off my goddamn vegetables before I eat them.  Always.

---
Fangamer

---
Fangamer

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

It made me smile.  But yeah, obviously it's pretty thoroughly unprofessional; he's just as bilious as the lowest-common-denominator commenters, he's just smarter and more coherent than they are.

Under the circumstances, his anger's understandable and forgivable.  There's no excuse for dredging up a guy's childhood trauma to try and win an argument.

In short: stop calling me unprofessional, you twats.

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

It's unfortunate that Gizmodo, being the bastion of editorial and journalistic integrity that they are has a problem with the Internet being well...the Internet. If they want to attract a better community, maybe they should look inward and act like proper journalists instead of the lowest common denominator be-first-at-all-costs, typical Gawker site that they are. There's no doubt most comment sections (even ones on good sites) are vile places but that's reality and always has been. If they can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. In the case of Gizmodo I say yes in fact, please DO get out of the kitchen.

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
www.digital-lifeline.ca

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

Well I can understand his annoyance, anger, and frustration. However, is this the right way to lash back? 

---------

James Fletcher, member of ECA Canada

Re: When Journalists Attack: Gizmodo

I think this article is completely unprofessional, and the author has issues and should seek help.

Aw come on! Someone had to say it.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Code Avarice's Paranautical Activity make its way back onto Steam?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Neo_DrKefkaSomeone anyone tell me how two wrongs somehow make a right? This is becoming exhausting and both sides are out of there minds!10/25/2014 - 11:40am
Neo_DrKefkaSo two GamerGate supporters received a knife and syringe in the mail today. The same GamerGate supporters who said how awful it was were seen in other tweets gathering lists and sending our similar threats or harassment to shut down the other side....10/25/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoJust look at how interviews are handled. Media tends to pit someone who is at best a journalist, but usually entertainer, against an expert, and it is presented and percieved as if they are equals.10/25/2014 - 7:38am
Neeneko@MC - Focusing on perpetrator does nothing for prevention, the media and public lack the domain knowledge and event details to draw any useful conclusions. All we get are armchair risk experts.10/25/2014 - 7:36am
Neeneko@AE - no name or picture, I like it.10/25/2014 - 7:34am
PHX Corp@MW and AE The news media needs to stop promoting the Shooters. period10/25/2014 - 7:16am
Andrew EisenWhen I write about these massacres, I don't use the shooter's name or picture. I'm not saying everyone has to play it that way but that's how I prefer to do it.10/25/2014 - 12:44am
Andrew EisenYep, it's why the news media stopped spotlighting numbnuts who run out on the field during sporting events.10/25/2014 - 12:01am
Matthew Wilsonin media research its called the copycat effect. it simply says that if the news covers one mass shooting shooter, it increases the likelihood of another person going on a mass shooting.10/25/2014 - 12:00am
Andrew EisenAgreed. It bugs me that I know the names, faces and personal histories of a bunch of mass shooters but I couldn't tell you the name of or recognize a photo of a single one of their victims.10/24/2014 - 11:51pm
AvalongodAgree with Quiknkold. @Mecha...if that worked we would have figured out how to prevent these long ago.10/24/2014 - 11:32pm
MechaCrashUnfortunately, you have to focus on the perpetrator to figure out the whys so you can try to prevent it from happening again.10/24/2014 - 10:55pm
quiknkoldpoor girl. poor victims. rather focus on them then the shooter. giving too much thought to the monster takes away from the victims.10/24/2014 - 10:15pm
Andrew EisenFor what it's worth, early reports are painting the motive as "he was pissed that a particular girl wouldn't date him."10/24/2014 - 10:12pm
quiknkoldwell then I suck as a man cause I ask for help when necessary :P10/24/2014 - 10:07pm
Technogeek(That said, mostly I was making the smartass evopsych comment because your post seemed like the kind of just-so story that has come to dominate 99% of its usage.)10/24/2014 - 10:04pm
TechnogeekHell, Liam Neeson built his modern career around it. Cultural factors likely play a far greater role than you appear willing to admit.10/24/2014 - 10:03pm
TechnogeekSeriously, though, the idea of "because women are protectors and that's why they never commit school shootings" is, at best, grossly overreductive. There's nothing inherently feminine about being willing to kill in order to protect one's offspring.10/24/2014 - 10:03pm
MechaCrashThe "toxic masculinity" thing refers to how you have to SUCK IT UP AND BE A MAN because seeking help is seen as weakness, which means you suck at manliness, so it builds and builds and builds until something finally snaps.10/24/2014 - 10:01pm
quiknkoldthere, I'm done. And thats what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown10/24/2014 - 9:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician