Bunfight at the Virtual Beanery

[tommy]

i guess plotters is back from vay-cay.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, I just don't think you're doing a very good job turning this into an argument about journalistic ethics. Whiting is a journalist, yes (something he discloses in the signature line of every post he makes on the site), but there is no evidence that he baited anybody for the purpose of writing an article. Every post by every user on this site is fair game for the media. Media do this sort of thing all the time -- they post the same query on a few different message board sites and they compare the answers they got, etc. Disclosure to me is more than adequate as I am along with Jason the site's governing executive -- in fact he didn't need to do it at all; I consider it a courtesy. What he wrote is clearly an opinion piece and therefore he has wide latitude in what claims he makes. I disagree with virtually every one of those claims, but what's best for the site is to go about our business rather than obsess about John's article. It has already no doubt gotten far more exposure here than it did in whatever thing originally carried its text, and every time one of us bumps this thread to the top we start the cycle again. Your original inclination to ignore it was correct.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - You and I are speaking about two different things. What might be *legal* isn't the standard I'm using. Of course he doesn't have to do anything. But what I'm objecting to is his coming onto the site and acting like he is just a member when he is wearing the hat of a writer. If he is going to be wearing two hats, which you point out that he is entitled to and to which you will get no disagreement from me, it behooves him on an ethical level to disclose which particluar hat he might be wearing during a discussion. As I said earlier, I do not know a single journalist who wouldn't make that disclosure.

The issue here isn't how John acts, it's our entitlement to know what he is doing. Like I said, maybe people will not want to interact with him as a result. Or maybe people will not want to post to the site anymore. In fact I recieved a PM from someone who said they are considering a hiatus because of John's article. I'm certain this person wouldn't feel that way about it if John had disclosed his intention and then this person would have had a chance to make an argument to defend their position in advance of thr article.

In the end of the day, this issue always comes back to the same thing. If eGullet continues to allow a policy where the members are allowed to write about each other on a personal level, the board will come apart at the seams. John's article actually raises the issue of it coming apart for that reason, but it does a shitty job of reporting the truth about it. Because Suvir is the one who crossed the threashold and personalized the conversation. The resulting trolls, which were egged on by John's writing on the board, and which he eggs on to this day by publicly lauding himself in the prose of the trolls, culiminated in an article written by a member about other members. It shouldn't have been allowed the first time it happened, and it shouldn't be allowed now. And if it is going to happen at an external source because a member wants to take advantage of his status here, it shouldn't be allowed to happen without full and clear disclosure. That's what any reporter who has come onto the site has done. I don't see why John shouldn't be bound by the same code of ethics.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, you probably don't realize how unintentionally hilarious your post was. Nonetheless, as much as I'd like to dismantle your arguments here I'm in the unenviable position of having to lead by example. So I must say goodbye to this topic as difficult as it will be for me to ignore your subsequent attempts to perpetuate it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well I had wanted to start a new topic about journalists who are members disclosing their intentions about writing articles but thought that would bring even more attention to John's article. And I knew that you wanted the thread to die so I stated it here. But I was surprised when you responded to me at all because you were the one who perpetuated the thread. But now I'm getting blamed for it. Sheesh. You guys should make up your mind about this free speech thing or not. Forced behavior to ensure a thread falls out of the active posts screen is just a mild version of it. A coherent response to the allegations would probably make the members here feel better. Although I'm not included in that bunch because I don't have a problem with the article. But I do have a problem with how the information was amassed which clearly shows bias. Maybe the Guild of Food Writers would allow one of us to write an Op-Ed piece about John's article?

[jordyn]

But I was surprised when you responded to me at all because you were the one who perpetuated the thread. But now I'm getting blamed for it. Sheesh. You guys should make up your mind about this free speech thing or not. Forced behavior to ensure a thread falls out of the active posts screen is just a mild version of it.

Steve P: I don't think anyone's forcing anyone to do anything. Fat Guy is suggesting that this conversation is not serving a particularly useful purpose at this point, and may have a negative effect on the overall community. I happen to agree with him--you obviously don't, but I'd be surprised if anyone "forced" you to stop writing by deleting your message.

Maybe the Guild of Food Writers would allow one of us to write an Op-Ed piece about John's article?

This seems like a perfectly reasonable approach. Maybe you should contact them and see if they will allow it. I suspect John may even be gracious enough to provide us with the appropriate contact information.

[Gavin Jones]

Excellent idea Steve, why don't you produce something.

[Jinmyo]

Steve, after John had posted the original article (different from the one under discussion) he mentioned several times that he was writing an article for FWG. cabrales asked if he would post a link or the article itself, I seem to remember.

So the article was no surprise. Nor were the views expressed.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jordyn - Well I have been away for 5 days so to me it's all new fodder.

Gavin - Thanks for nominating me but I didn't bring it up so I could get a sopabox. My pet peeve on this one is full disclosure. I don't need to be published by the FWG. Maybe someone else wants to volunteer.

Jin - I'm not aware of any disclosure though there might be. But I am describing full disclosure which is what I think any jounalist would do.

I mean hasn't it happened before that a journalist has come onto the site and disclosed that the questions they were asking are for the purpose of an article? I don't think that is too much to ask of John or anyone else here that is intending to do the same. Full and clear disclosure isn't a bad standard for people to live by. And not doing it (intentionally) should allow me or anyone else to draw an inference about the writer and the publication.

[John Whiting]

A note of realism is required. The GFW Newsletter is an in-house informational pamphlet, the folded equivalent of four A4 pages, mostly up-coming events and reports on past workshops with sometimes an op-ed piece thrown in for filler. There's a back-page "rant" where members get things off their chest (that wasn't me). There are no newsstand sales, no scoops, no "extras", no stop-presses. My little piece filled a page that was empty due to a lack of summer news; it came and went without a flicker of feedback. What do they care? They're mostly into print. I'm the nut that actually uses his computer for *reading*.

Go on, somebody -- be the Mouse that Roared. After the laughter has died down you'll be patted on the head and given a cookie. In the meantime, the brouhaha that's been echoing across these pages has given my little piece a continuing readership of, so far, 1577. That's about five times the membership of the Guild. I couldn't buy PR like that even if I could afford it.

[tommy]

In the meantime, the brouhaha that's been echoing across these pages has given my little piece a continuing readership of, so far, 1577. That's about five times the membership of the Guild. I couldn't buy PR like that even if I could afford it.

in reality, it's probably the same 10 people reading over and over, trying to figure out what turn of events you were reporting on.

[Bux]

What might be *legal* isn't the standard I'm using. Of course he doesn't have to do anything. But what I'm objecting to is his coming onto the site and acting like he is just a member when he is wearing the hat of a writer. If he is going to be wearing two hats, which you point out that he is entitled to and to which you will get no disagreement from me, it behooves him on an ethical level to disclose which particluar hat he might be wearing during a discussion. As I said earlier, I do not know a single journalist who wouldn't make that disclosure.

I don't recall Bill Daley making any sort of disclosure when he first came to the site and I'm not aware that either he nor John came to the site with the intention of writing an article. At one point, Bill contacted several of the founders and moderators and asked questions. He did not, as far as I know, submit a draft of his article prior to its publication. You, and I, have no entitlement to know how our public words are reported and we should be encouraged that journalists find us worthy of notice and articles. Your ad hoc and bogus set of ethical issues serve no other purpose than a personal vendetta and should be seen as such by all.

Many of us make mistakes in life, online and in this forum. Most of us recover and go on contributing as best we can for our own and the general benefit. I've already addressed my disagreement with John about his opinions and focus as expressed on this site and in print. I have also expressed my respect for his being honest about what he's said and for posting his words here and taking his lumps from those who disagreed or felt insulted before moving on.

I would not blame you for perpetuating the thread. I would however, take you to task for inventing ethical issues which suit your arguments in an effort to perpetuate the thread where you have no legitimate case on the issue. One of the larger issues I see here is when does the negative effect of a member's input exceed his positive contribution. In John's case, the positive far outweighs the negative and for that reason I've told him in pubic when and where I find his contributions most useful. I'm happy to make that suggestion to any member interested. John's overall participation here allowed me to make the assumption that he was interested in hearing what I have to say even if he dismisses it out of hand, but that's part of why I think he's valuable to the site. "Fighting" can be carried on at all levels. There's a level where one shows respect for the adversary and treats him with respect. I think that's the level members call for and when it's lost, they call for a return to that level not a dog fight without rules.

[Wilfrid]

But I do think that John and his editor understand what the ethics of reporting are all about and I feel the lack of disclosure is purposeful. I don't know of a writer in the land who would not disclose their intent. And I don't know of an editor who would publish something knowing there wasn't full disclosure. The disclosure to you isn't sufficient. Disclosure means full disclosure.

Steve, are you suffering from selective amnesia?

When John first put a short item about eGullet online, I complained - indeed, I threw his own words back at him ("Are we then your raw materials?"), because I thought it was, not unethical, but cheeky. You were absolutely delighted by his piece, raised no complaints about lack of disclosure, and chided me for being "jealous", because you perceived that the piece was mainly about you.

Since then, you have fallen out with John over the so-called "Suvir" issue, so your tone is completely different. John said at the time that he was going to write a fuller piece for the newsletter. And he has. Where's the lack of disclosure there? For what it's worth, I thought the second piece was better because fuller and more balanced.

By the way: the idea that journalists always disclose their intentions before gathering material is naive.

[Bux]

Jin - I'm not aware of any disclosure though there might be. But I am describing full disclosure which is what I think any jounalist would do.

I mean hasn't it happened before that a journalist has come onto the site and disclosed that the questions they were asking are for the purpose of an article? I don't think that is too much to ask of John or anyone else here that is intending to do the same. Full and clear disclosure isn't a bad standard for people to live by. And not doing it (intentionally) should allow me or anyone else to draw an inference about the writer and the publication.

The established pattern for reporting on eGullet has been established before John's article, and what you think any journalist would do is not what a highly respected journalist did. In other aspects discussed in other threads, it's been pretty well established that the journalist in question adheres to a set of ethics most of us consider exceptionally high. Impeachable might be the effective word.

As Fat Guy may have stated--I'm too lazy to read back but it doesn't matter if he hasn't, I will state it--I don't recall any question or post that John appeared to make for his article. If you are afraid your words may be seen by a journalist and used, you're in trouble. We are not a private group, but a public forum and one that's been noticed by food professionals of all ilks. You can't be sure any word you post about a restaurant won't be read by the chef--but you knew that already.

You know John's a writer. You know other writers have been here and reported. Your concerns are disingenuous. More to the point, there are professional writers here in the capacity of members and staff. I haven't heard them support the bizarre ethical standard you ask us to live by. It may not be as bad as it is bizarre, but I don't find it a professional ethic. This a flamingly transparent attempt to retroactively establish a false standard by which to tar someone.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. Over the 20+ years I have been in business I have been interviewed countless times and have particpated in events that have been turned into articles even more times, never once have I been in a situation where I haven't been told by the writer what he or she is intending to do. And there's a good reason for that. People are entitled to know who they are speaking to. And while I know your response to that is that this is a public forum and anyone can read it, that has nothing to do with the way you interact with your fellow members. If they come to the board in earnest, i.e. as a participant, that is one thing. And if they are coming for another purpose they should disclose that. It's not a very strenuous standard that I have laid out. If it was me, I would have disclosed it. Not based on any journalistic standard (even though I think one exists,) but one of respect to the other posters. Even the many people here that I do not hold in high regard are entitled to that level of disclosure.

As I said earlier, I have no problems with the article and its slant. I would have had no desire to read it in advance and would not have asked for any changes if I had gotten the chance to read it. However, the article is unfair in that John didn't point out that he was in a position to contribute to some of the issues he was writing about. Fat Guy mentioned that in his first post that John failed to disclose that he was poster number 17. Rail Paul mentioned other "flaws" in the article and others did as well. My comments are just expansions of those issues. Do Fat Guy and the others have a vendetta against John as well? Of course not and neither do I. I made a point on the merits that I think is right. And in the future John can act differently or not, and if he doesn't, we can choose to interact with him or not. Now that sounds like a fair arrangement to me.

[Wilfrid]

Steve, I still don't understand why you told me to lay off John the first time he did all this?

[Jinmyo]

Because you don't know your own strength, Wilfrid.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrd - Well this aspect of it hadn't occurred to me at the time so you have my apologies. Even in this instance, I couldn't care less what he wrote about. But what does bother me is how he used his membership on the board to his advantage in the article. I don't think it's in the article but it is in a post in response to certain questions that he raised the "waiting for Suvir to return issue." Well that is inside info based on his membership. Not info that he accumulated from being a reporter. The end result is that the article has a bias on that issue and like someone mentioned, it isn't fairly reported on. That's my only real complaint and I think it's a result of less than full disclosure. But again, you have my apologies and you can go at him all you want. It will be my pleasure to watch. And maybe even participate.

[rich]

Nothing to hide = nothing to fear.

[Wilfrid]

Wilfrd - Well this aspect of it hadn't occurred to me at the time so you have my apologies.

I shall add them to my collection.

To be honest, I have trouble piecing together all this "Suvir" stuff. I did comment to John, privately, that I thought the paragraph about problems on the board was old news. But at least he didn't make it all sound like millionaires in private jets this time.

[Bux]

But what does bother me is how he used his membership on the board to his advantage in the article. I don't think it's in the article but it is in a post in response to certain questions that he raised the "waiting for Suvir to return issue." Well that is inside info based on his membership. Not info that he accumulated from being a reporter.  The end result is that the article has a bias on that issue and like someone mentioned, it isn't fairly reported on. That's my only real complaint and I think it's a result of less than full disclosure.

John used his membership here to ask questions just as any other member has. That he used the public answers to his questions as well as what appears in other posts should not cause anyone any concern. Any lurker could gather the same information. Your only "real complaint" is an issue fabricated as a red herring. By the way, there's no requirement that a reporter not use his real life experience in his stories. On the other hand I don't know that John wrote in the capacity of a reporter, journalist, food writer or editorialist.

But again, you have my apologies and you can go at him all you want. It will be my pleasure to watch. And maybe even participate.

Why you come here for that sort of pleasure is beyond me.

[=Mark]

I think John should forfeit all the ill gotten gains he recieved for the article and distribute it amongst all the poor ravaged eGulleteers that he has defamed...

[Bux]

Bux I'm sorry I have to disagree with you.

There is no disagreement over what happened here.

Over the 20+ years I have been in business I have been interviewed countless times and have particpated in events that have been turned into articles even more times, never once have I been in a situation where I haven't been told by the writer what he or she is intending to do. And there's a good reason for that. People are entitled to know who they are speaking to.

Don't tell us that John interviewed you. I found nothing deceitful about John's posting on eGullet as much I as did not appreciate his article.

And while I know your response to that is that this is a public forum and anyone can read it, that has nothing to do with the way you interact with your fellow members.

And your complaint is that John "interviewed" you or that he was dishonest in his interactions. Was he more dishonest than other members who do not indicate their real name and professional affiliation with food?

If they come to the board in earnest, i.e. as a participant, that is one thing.

John came to the board as a participant, as I assume did the other writers, reporters and journalists that have come and registered or lurked. As a particpant he posted earnestly for some time and in great numbers.

And if they are coming for another purpose they should disclose that.

I have established that John cam here to participate. The chronology of events will support that as will all of Johh's posts in many threads scattered across the boards. John has been an active member with a point of view long before he was approached to write the article.

It's not a very strenuous standard that I have laid out.

Of course it's not a very strenuous standard--it's not a standard except in "The World According to Plotnicki."

If it was me,

If pig's could fly... Well I suppose they'd by poultry, but in any event, it was not you and it was not me, so we'll have to rely on commonly accepted rules of ethics here. It's the only way a community can operate. If you'd like to propose a change in the form of some revision to the user agreement, I suspect others will offer many arguments as why such a set of rules might not be in our best interests and might have a chilling effect on the possibility we'd get some good press in the future.

I would have disclosed it. Not based on any journalistic standard (even though I think one exists,) but one of respect to the other posters. Even the many people here that I do not hold in high regard are entitled to that level of disclosure.

Terrific, but you've retreated from your original position that you were expecting John to act professionally. Now we are in disagreement. I disagree that it's honest and proper to hold anyone to a personal set of ethics that conflicts with the commonly accepted standards especially when it is presented after the fact.

As I said earlier, I have no problems with the article and its slant. I would have had no desire to read it in advance and would not have asked for any changes if I had gotten the chance to read it. However, the article is unfair in that John didn't point out that he was in a position to contribute to some of the issues he was writing about. Fat Guy mentioned that in his first post that John failed to disclose that he was poster number 17. Rail Paul mentioned other "flaws" in the article and others did as well. My comments are just expansions of those issues. Do Fat Guy and the others have a vendetta against John as well? Of course not and neither do I. I made a point on the merits that I think is right. And in the future John can act differently or not, and if he doesn't, we can choose to interact with him or not. Now that sounds like a fair arrangement to me.

I don't see your comments as expansions of what those others said at all and it's rather disingeuous to line Fat Guy up on your side here.

I'd prefer not to see these discussions go on any longer. Members have done well to present their legitiamte criticisms of Whiting's article and move on. I'm bogged down responding to your post not because I enjoy the discussion but because you do an excellent job of presenting opinion as fact and I cannot bear to let it go unanswered. I'm sure I'll get complaints from those who will tell me they don't need my post to see that and I don't mean to underestimate most of our members.

Post another brilliant and poetic report on an excellent dinner and I'll follow up as a devoted admirer of both your ability to appreciate food and relate that experience. I personally think you're wasting your time and talents on this issue. For what it's worth, I won't even mind if you write about a bottle of wine I'll never get to taste or one that cost more than all the wine we served at our daughter's wedding put together.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"John used his membership here to ask questions just as any other member has. That he used the public answers to his questions as well as what appears in other posts should not cause anyone any concern. Any lurker could gather the same information. "

Bux - That isn't true. Anyone else would make full disclosure when asking their question. And if they didn't, the next time they might be treated differently. And while a lurker could gather the same information, a lurker would have no idea that Suvir is coming back. So I don't really know what you are talking about because while it might very well happen the way you describe, the fact of the matter is that it doesn't ever happen that way at all. I just can't imagine that if Steve Klc or someone else on this board was writing an article on the goings on around here that they wouldn't disclose it in full detail to the other members. But I guess we could live by the Truman Capote standard if that's what you want.

"Why you come here for that sort of pleasure is beyond me"

Well excuse me for saying this but if you haven't noticed it, since the whole "incident" there has been a serious diminution of good food writing on the board. Ad hominem attacks are almost de rigeur around here. And articles like John's, along with his continuing attitude towards members who contribute at the high end level, including how he describes those people on a personal level after they contribute to the board in earnest has acted as a huge deterrent. I've said it before and I will say it again. People are happy to have their opinion criticized, but people aren't happy being criticized for having an opinion. And if the latter is tolerated it just consumes the former.

What I find amusing is that here in this thread that management wanted to die a quick death, you have perpetuated the thread based on what I said was just my gut feeling about it. I could have spoken my two cents and then it would have died. I should also add that I composed this response before reading your last reponse to me and I noticed it on the preview. But it seems that this response was sufficient to respond to the material points you made.

[Bux]

Bux - That isn't true. Anyone else would make full disclosure when asking their question.

We've gone from professional "standard" to what "you" would do and now on (or back) to what "anyone" would do. I don't know if it's the shifts here or just the fact that you are comfortable telling us exactly what the whole rest of the world would do in any situation that convinces me this is not about anything but gamesmanship.