Grantland screwed up. You know it, I know it, Bill Simmons certainly knows it. To recap: Two weeks ago, Grantland ran a story about the inventor of a so-called "magic putter." This woman turned out to be a massive fraud, as well as a transgendered individual who had begun life as a man. The latter bit of information was handled, let's call it, less than tactfully in the resulting story. While conducting an interview, the writer outed her, deliberately if not malicously, to an investor. Not long before the piece was published, Dr. V committed suicide. Grantland then made the regrettable choice to run the story, and has since experienced massive backlash focusing on a lack of empathy within it, the superfluousness of Dr. V's gender identity to the entire journalistic enterprise, and the supposed link between Caleb Hannan's reporting and Dr V's death. In response, Bill Simmons wrote a long, thoughtful letter giving Grantland's side of the story, and offering an unconditional apology and acceptance of blame for issues in the piece. Now, to offer my completely unwanted take on a few elements here….
First off, blaming Caleb Hannan for Dr. V's tragic suicide is preposterous. He messed up (badly), but threatening his life and posting his private info online is utterly insane. He is guilty of naivety, a lack of journalistic ethics, and serious failings of intellectual curiosity. That doesn't make him a terrible or malicious person. So, to all the people treating him as a cross between Bin Laden and Hitler, stop. Just stop. Online reaction to the piece shows how fundamentally defensive we've become as a society. Anytime we percieve the slightest hint of intolerance, the source of that disruption needs to be hunted down and flayed. We've become so obsessed with equality and fair treatment for all that we're actually intolerant of dissenting and/or non-PC viewpoints. Dr. V. was a conartist who repeatedly and knowingly defrauded investors. She deserved to be exposed, ridiculed, and possibly arrested. Now, I'm not saying that her gender identity was an intrinsic and necessary part of the larger narrative. But I don't think you can say that it wasn't, either. The article and line of enquiry are legitimate, and Hannan asked important questions. Yes, his delivery and packaging of the information sucked, but the thought-process behind his work is sound.
This story is about lies. Dr. V pretended that she had invented a magic putter, using scientific skills and credentials she never had. She pretended to be a certain person, and Hannan's reporting revealed her as someone else. Lots of people do that, regardless of gender identity and sexuality, and she obviously didn't need to reveal the most unique aspects of her past experiences. But the thing is, she chose to invent much more of her past than being born male. If she'd said, for example, that she was a former mechanic who'd stumbled onto an amazing new putter, then that story would be entirely true, and there's no need to write a word about her gender. But the entirety of the story is so deeply tied to Dr. V's self-invention that I don't think there's a way to write it without touching on the fact that she's transgender. Bill Simmons, in his excellent explanation for Grantland's editorial thought-process, seems fairly confident Hannan's reporting is worthwhile, and he's right.
But, and this is the big question, should the story have been pitched in a more empathetic and emotionally present fashion, especially when dealing with Dr. V's suicide? In a word, no. Imagine, for a second, that Hannan had closed the story by interjecting his own emotions, mentioning how shaken he was by the entire episode, and how sorry for any role he'd played in the tragedy. Would this ring true? Or would it sound like a young, up-and-coming writer desperate to not let this episode torpedo his career? Hannan found himself in an impossible situation, and so did what all reporters should default to doing; he reported facts and let the reader draw conclusions. Insensitive? Yes, perhaps. But also making the best of a terrible situation.
Hannan made one, truly glaring, mistake: He outed Dr. V to an investor. That action was entirely indefensible. But he's a young guy who screwed up, not a bad person. We all do that, and hopefully use those mistakes as opportunities to learn and grow. Like his subject, Hannan had the misfortune of making his mistakes in the public eye. Dr. V chose to compound her errors with more lies, while Hannan seems to be doing his level best to improve as a writer and person. Shouldn't we be willing to give him the chance?
No comments:
Post a Comment