But didn’t some reports against EA men go viral before the Time piece? Doesn’t that disprove your thesis?
I guess it also feels a bit like moving the goalposts to speak about seeking “public attention” like that in itself is a good thing. I remember watching a video from “Ms. Joseph” and she just wanted the problems handled, I thought so anyway. She didn’t seem to care about”public attention”. So it seems very important to clarify that if you or anyone else just wants a problem handled, that going to the press may be one of the worst ways to get that done. After all, a journalist can’t even answer questions and ever help you understand what went wrong. And after all, it sounds to me from what you and others say that she did end up reporting someone on a national scale who was already banned from EA events, which was then reported as proof that EA presently has a problem. Soooo something went wrong there. You say it isn’t our place to criticize her reaction and like, yeah, maybe I’ll give you that, it’s a shitty situation. And sometimes the press may be the right choice (as I say I’m trying not to discourage or reduce freedom to speak to the press).
But avoiding criticizing here doesn’t mean We should shrug about going to the press and act like it’s the natural next step here. We can certainly offer better alternatives, try to inform… After all, the press actually did a bad job here and, as an intermediary, tend to do a bad job around any delicate personal issues and experiences one may have. Like, most people don’t want significant public attention. They want issues handled. Journalists can help with that of needed but damn is there ever a long list of cons, and nobody needs to feel like it’s their only option.
Making one’s content go viral is extremely difficult and finicky, with an extremely low chance that any particular content will do that.
I don’t think I’m moving the goalposts given that Aella wrote unfavorably about “going to TIME . . . .” And this lines up with a broader pattern: Rochelle Shen is quoted in the article about pressure to “keep it all in the family.” So I think it’s important to be very clear that we are not criticizing people’s personal choice to go to the media before we start talking about the downsides of doing so. I don’t think the original post did that, and my concern goes double with the post author is a mini-famous figure. (I do agree with you that the downsides of talking to the media are often significant, and appreciate your contributions to the conversation on that point.)
Each of the women whose experienced were included in the article chose to speak to TIME. I’m pretty sure each of them knew that TIME reporters do not have subpoena power and that talking to a reporter is likely to lead to one’s story receiving significant public attention. Thus, I conclude that each of them decided that talking to the TIME reporter and bringing significant public attention to what happened to them was a good idea.
I suspect that talking to the media was the first choice of exactly zero of the sources. Few people would prefer having stories of them being harassed or abused in the pages of a major media outlet. And I suspect most of the women understood, at least to some extent, that talking to a reporter meant surrendering most control over how their story was portrayed. Yet each made a decision to talk.
From all that, I infer from the women’s decision to talk to TIME that they felt either that their own situation had not been appropriately dealt with, or that sexual harassment/abuse in EA was still a big enough problem to justifythe downsides of going to the media. That’s why I suggested “working on a more effective internal mechanism to listen to these individuals” so they wouldn’t feel like talking to a reporter was their best option. (And yes, I recognize the challenges in designing and implementing such a mechanism.)
I think we both agree that EA should aim toward a world in which no one who experiences harassment or abuse within the community feels that going to the media is necessary.
[Edit: now I have more agreement with @Jason that the internal systems need work. I’m personally still impressed by the CH team’s work and don’t want people to believe official EA avenues are fundamentally broken or anything, but yes there is greater need for internal improvement than I thought. See @Lauren Maria ’s response to me below]
Fair points. Well, I don’t necessarily agree that the “internal mechanisms to listen to these individuals” needs work, as I think that there are current avenues to know that SA in EA was being handled or plans were being made for things to be handled, and/or ways to find out that one’s case was not the fault of EA or even performed by an EA man (before reporting it to Time with claim of such). But the proof is in the pudding that these were not publicized or promoted enough.
So I do agree (and have written elsewhere) that EA dropped the ball on announcing intention to make changes (and changes made) in response to SA complaints back in November. It is understandable that some women felt they needed another step. We don’t know that any complainants would have been paying enough attention to notice announcements, but I bet at least some would have, and the Time journalist could have noticed at least.
And FWIW I strong-agreed with another comment you wrote elsewhere that we need a solid list of criteria for who is and is not an EA, because we also need to be able to clearly name cases that are within EA jurisdiction and which EAs have the ability to handle vs those which are not. So that resentment doesn’t build toward EA in cases where it is not warranted.
Well, I don’t necessarily agree that the “internal mechanisms to listen to these individuals” needs work, as I think that there are current avenues to know that SA in EA was being handled or plans were being made for things to be handled, and/or ways to find out that one’s case was not the fault of EA or even performed by an EA man (before reporting it to Time with claim of such)
I think we can say that it does need work, based on these recent posts, and the CEA team seems to be acknowledging this (which is great!).
In reference to your previous conversation with Jason, It also seems that these people going to the press may have actually encouraged the CEA to have an external investigation and for Owen Cotton-Barratt to step down.
But didn’t some reports against EA men go viral before the Time piece? Doesn’t that disprove your thesis?
I guess it also feels a bit like moving the goalposts to speak about seeking “public attention” like that in itself is a good thing. I remember watching a video from “Ms. Joseph” and she just wanted the problems handled, I thought so anyway. She didn’t seem to care about”public attention”. So it seems very important to clarify that if you or anyone else just wants a problem handled, that going to the press may be one of the worst ways to get that done. After all, a journalist can’t even answer questions and ever help you understand what went wrong. And after all, it sounds to me from what you and others say that she did end up reporting someone on a national scale who was already banned from EA events, which was then reported as proof that EA presently has a problem. Soooo something went wrong there. You say it isn’t our place to criticize her reaction and like, yeah, maybe I’ll give you that, it’s a shitty situation. And sometimes the press may be the right choice (as I say I’m trying not to discourage or reduce freedom to speak to the press).
But avoiding criticizing here doesn’t mean We should shrug about going to the press and act like it’s the natural next step here. We can certainly offer better alternatives, try to inform… After all, the press actually did a bad job here and, as an intermediary, tend to do a bad job around any delicate personal issues and experiences one may have. Like, most people don’t want significant public attention. They want issues handled. Journalists can help with that of needed but damn is there ever a long list of cons, and nobody needs to feel like it’s their only option.
Making one’s content go viral is extremely difficult and finicky, with an extremely low chance that any particular content will do that.
I don’t think I’m moving the goalposts given that Aella wrote unfavorably about “going to TIME . . . .” And this lines up with a broader pattern: Rochelle Shen is quoted in the article about pressure to “keep it all in the family.” So I think it’s important to be very clear that we are not criticizing people’s personal choice to go to the media before we start talking about the downsides of doing so. I don’t think the original post did that, and my concern goes double with the post author is a mini-famous figure. (I do agree with you that the downsides of talking to the media are often significant, and appreciate your contributions to the conversation on that point.)
Each of the women whose experienced were included in the article chose to speak to TIME. I’m pretty sure each of them knew that TIME reporters do not have subpoena power and that talking to a reporter is likely to lead to one’s story receiving significant public attention. Thus, I conclude that each of them decided that talking to the TIME reporter and bringing significant public attention to what happened to them was a good idea.
I suspect that talking to the media was the first choice of exactly zero of the sources. Few people would prefer having stories of them being harassed or abused in the pages of a major media outlet. And I suspect most of the women understood, at least to some extent, that talking to a reporter meant surrendering most control over how their story was portrayed. Yet each made a decision to talk.
From all that, I infer from the women’s decision to talk to TIME that they felt either that their own situation had not been appropriately dealt with, or that sexual harassment/abuse in EA was still a big enough problem to justifythe downsides of going to the media. That’s why I suggested “working on a more effective internal mechanism to listen to these individuals” so they wouldn’t feel like talking to a reporter was their best option. (And yes, I recognize the challenges in designing and implementing such a mechanism.)
I think we both agree that EA should aim toward a world in which no one who experiences harassment or abuse within the community feels that going to the media is necessary.
[Edit: now I have more agreement with @Jason that the internal systems need work. I’m personally still impressed by the CH team’s work and don’t want people to believe official EA avenues are fundamentally broken or anything, but yes there is greater need for internal improvement than I thought. See @Lauren Maria ’s response to me below]
Fair points. Well, I don’t necessarily agree that the “internal mechanisms to listen to these individuals” needs work, as I think that there are current avenues to know that SA in EA was being handled or plans were being made for things to be handled, and/or ways to find out that one’s case was not the fault of EA or even performed by an EA man (before reporting it to Time with claim of such). But the proof is in the pudding that these were not publicized or promoted enough.
So I do agree (and have written elsewhere) that EA dropped the ball on announcing intention to make changes (and changes made) in response to SA complaints back in November. It is understandable that some women felt they needed another step. We don’t know that any complainants would have been paying enough attention to notice announcements, but I bet at least some would have, and the Time journalist could have noticed at least.
And FWIW I strong-agreed with another comment you wrote elsewhere that we need a solid list of criteria for who is and is not an EA, because we also need to be able to clearly name cases that are within EA jurisdiction and which EAs have the ability to handle vs those which are not. So that resentment doesn’t build toward EA in cases where it is not warranted.
I think we can say that it does need work, based on these recent posts, and the CEA team seems to be acknowledging this (which is great!).
In reference to your previous conversation with Jason, It also seems that these people going to the press may have actually encouraged the CEA to have an external investigation and for Owen Cotton-Barratt to step down.
Yeah I def think you and Jason are more right now than I did even a few hours ago. Edited.