Media Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day, Part 2
posted by on July 2 at 9:58 AM
[name redacted], Seattle Times staff reporter, who wrote this morning’s piece on two women who called police after seeing their neighbor spying on them through the window with binoculars and a flashlight.
The story twice quotes the wife of the peeping Tom claiming the women were always “putting on a show,” but does not quote the women or their perspective . And the story repeatedly refers to the two women as “girls,” as in: The neighbor’s “wife told officers she should have called police on the girls for “putting on a show” by walking around naked or in sexy lingerie.” True? Not true? Who knows —Clarridge doesn’t bother to ascertain.
And for fuck’s sake: This is 2008. “Girls”?
Eds. note: The Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack described in this post successfully appealed to have his or her name redacted so that it would not haunt him/her in Google searches for all time. You may read the text of the appeal after the jump, should you give a shit.
I’ve been a reporter at The Seattle Times for 12 years and have, I’m sorry to say, committed some hackery in my time. Nevertheless, I do not believe a piece I wrote, which was immortalized in The SLOG’s “Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack Part II” on July 2, 2008, is the best example of said hackery and I wish to appeal its inclusion.
The story was about two Queen Anne residents who called police to say their neighbors were spying on them with flashlights and binoculars. The police ended up telling the spied upon to shut their blinds and the spiers to put down the binoculars.
The former SLOGger who called me out on this story berated me for using the word “girls” and for failing to get the alleged victims’ side of the story.
The problem is, the story was based on a redacted police report. That means the names of all the parties, their ages and their addresses were removed so I was unable to follow up and get anyone’s side of the story. I did err in calling the female victims “girls” (without using quotes) because the wife of the spier used that word and I inadvertantly repeated it. I did, however, call them women throughout most of the story.
I debated including a list of links in an attempt to prove that I’m not that stupid of a hack, but instead decided to just include two. One is a “Conscientious Journalist of the Day” commendation from the creator of the SFCH for my inclusion of an “anti-war on drugs” paragraph in a drug sweep story. The other is, I believe, an example of my finest work. It involves one woman’s tireless efforts to eradicate the mullet from Kitsap County.
Here’s the link to one: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/... (And P.S., I could find a critic, but I wanted to “boil down” the many relevant criticisms for brevity’s sake.)
Here’s the link to the other: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/... (Please note the inclusion of an academic viewpoint on the stigmatization of the mullet.)
I thank you for your consideration and humbly await your ruling.
[name redacted]
instead of girls lets use the term rapebait.
girls is now a nono? 'boy' too? like "And a lot of work went into the Julia's/La Faux float—oh, and check out the boy lifting his leg at the top right." please clarify.
Golden GIRLS was really a sinister propaganda weapon used by strident supporters of the patriarchal narrative
Spying from inside his own home?
How did the girls know unless they were spying into his home?
The binoculars make sense, but a flashlight?
i am reminded of a seinfeld episode.
Well, it's a felony. Whether it should be is another question:
RCW 9A.44.115. Voyeurism
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Intimate areas" means any portion of a person's body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view;
(b) "Photographs" or "films" means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person;
(c) "Place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" means:
(i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or
(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;
(d) "Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;
(e) "Views" means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity.
(2) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:
(a) Another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or
(b) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.
(3) Voyeurism is a class C felony.
(4) This section does not apply to viewing, photographing, or filming by personnel of the department of corrections or of a local jail or correctional facility for security purposes or during investigation of alleged misconduct by a person in the custody of the department of corrections or the local jail or correctional facility.
(5) If a person is convicted of a violation of this section, the court may order the destruction of any photograph, motion picture film, digital image, videotape, or any other recording of an image that was made by the person in violation of this section.
Ya, people shouldn't have the right to walk around naked! Finally some sense in this town.
Hate to blame the victim(s), but...
Anyone who walks around their house in their underwear (or nude) with the blinds open is an exhibitionist or just plain oblivious. I can tell you right now I ALWAYS make sure the blinds are closed when I do shit like that... my roommate, on the other hand, loves attention and makes sure to open the blinds for all the neighbors to see.
In this case the use of "girls" sounds pejorative.
But in all cases? Shall we call them Riot Womyn?
May I suggest: thingsihateaboutthetimes&pi.blogspot.com? It would really save a lot of time for everyone.
I walk around my house naked all the time. It's my fucking house. Got a big picture window right out front with no blinds, too. Due to the hillside and the location of the other houses, you'd really have to put some effort into it to see me, but still: there it is. Am I putting on a show? No, I'm minding my own business.
Binoculars, flashlights? Classy. Shine a flashlight into my house and you'll be eating it shortly.
I was gone - did the Slog do "Pitbull Tuesday" yesterday? I guess I can catch up next week. I'll be around for "Obama Circle Jerk Friday" though.
I really hope you never find yourself wondering why you're single.
..they meant to say 'gals'.
Chicks cannot hold dey smoke.
Dat's what it is.
@14,
Presumptuous.
Maybe he has one of those new phones that we saw on slog yesterday, which allows you to reach out and touch your sexy young neighbor babe. Perhaps if that phone had had speed dial he wouldn't have needed the flashlight.
So, let that be a lesson to all of you out there, if you buy one of those phones you might get into trouble. You'd be better off just using that phone on you wife, even if she doesn't parade around naked or in sexy underwear anymore.
So we're adding [name redacted] to ECB's ever-growing list of misogynists? Got it.
Just for the record though - the story calls them "women" six times, including in the headline.
It calls them "girls" twice: once when talking about what the neighbor's WIFE told the police officer and once in what looks like a geniune error.
Jeez, that reporter is such a hack!!
I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the reporter. Shoot the editor instead.
Somedays, ECB, it just doesn't pay to post.
Especially when you're being ageist.
@12: exactly. Sounds like victim blaming at its best. They could follow this article up with one of those "scientific studies" about how men just "can't help but look at beautiful women," and how "she was asking for it"
Address please? I just spent four hours cruising Queen Anne Avenue N to no avail.
damn, fnarf, will you please move to someplace flat? it's hard on my fat body crawlin' up that hill for a decent vantage point of chez fnarf.
@22 Don't act so holier-than-thou. You can't deny that if you glimpse one of your neighbors nekkid, you're not going to run away shrieking in horror for your virginal eyes. I will however concede that using binoculars and a flashlight is crossing the line for sure.
If you're like me and you live in apartment building hell, you have to know your neighbors window 10 feet away will look directly in on you if you choose to walk around naked, so plan accordingly... Not all of us have the luxury of seclusion like Fnarf.
So what the fuck are you on about?
Queen Anne doesn't have all that many apartment buildings. It's far more likely that there's nothing but single family homes across the street from those women's apartment. And if their apartment is above the second floor, it probably wasn't unreasonable for them to think that no one could see them, at least not without the aid of binoculars and a flashlight.
It's official: Erica is not a vegan/vegitarian becuse she seems to enjoy the taste of her own foot quite alot.
Even if the girls were always "putting on a show" I'd think the offenders wife would, or should have some issues with her husband gawking at the neighbors all the time.
For a long time, I lived in a house that had 92 outside windows, but if I didn't want people to see me naked or partly clothed, it was all too easy to do. Even during the time when none of the windows in my bedroom had blinds, I made do with towels over the frames.
Both parties to this incident throw out some bullshit excuses - "putting on a show" vs. "blinds were broken." The police were right on in their responses: put the binoculars away, get the blinds fixed, grow the fuck up.
When I lived on Bigelow, at the top of QA, there was a morbidly obese woman next door who used to walk around naked, or in a pair of panties that disappeared under her capacious folds of flesh so as to render her naked-like.
I finally called the police because I was sick of sitting at my dining table (eating rational-size portions, mind you) -- or worse, entertaining others -- only to feel a tug of gravity as that human moon hove into sight and began to shuffle about her flat.
The police took one look at what I had to view and went right over there to talk to her. Apparently, it's not cool to show yourself naked where kids (like the kids in the unit next to mine, who had the same view), could witness her exhibitionism. The police retruned to my flat to brief me on their discussion with Gypsy Rose Fupa and said they had reason to believe she was doing it on purpose and told her to cease.
She did. Thank Christ.
My dirty secret: if it had been a hot guy, I never would have called the cops. Ever.
And as for girl -- get over yourself.
"girls"...that's almost as annoying as "ladies/lady". When did "woman/women" become a hard word; many people seem to use "girl" or "lady" in its place to soften things up.
They have vaginas, don't they? As the old saying goes, "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina."
Vagina.
Sorry, ECB, but I love [name redacted].
If you ever had to, you know, like jello wrestle her or something, I'd totally have to root for her.
@25-UNPAID. I was thinking something along the same lines; perhaps there was some upping of antes going on in the who-leaves-their-blinds-open wars.
Jube - there's a nekkid pianoman across from my buddy's that eventually gets mad and sweeps the shades closed. You can't not look once the twinklin' starts. I try all the time.
And Kesh, QA Ave is lined with apartment buildings/condos till you cross McGraw and run down the north slope.
Just so I'm clear: Erica refers to this Times staff reporter as "Stupid F***ing Credulous Hack" (sorry for redacting-I'm at work) because she used the word "girls"? Granted, she should have used the word "women", but really, Erica, does her mistake really warrant this level of outrage? People will take you more seriously if you don't go insane every time someone says something you don't like. Get a grip.
Scary Tyler Moore, all you gotta do is stand across the street on the sidewalk, but hardly anyone ever does. And when they do, they're too engrossed in their giant stroller to noice me. It's not that secluded, just a trick of the neighborhood.
I worked with [name redacted] and not only is she a great reporter, she's a sweet person. She's one of the most hard-working and enthusiastic people I've ever worked with. She's not even CLOSE to being a misogynist. And she'd never be so low as to call you, ECB, a "stupid fucking credulous hack." You've been nothing but nasty and spiteful to several of my coworkers. For what? Did they refuse to move your piano?
You're a D+ writer at best. Save your critiques and put your energy into getting out there and reporting, not whining. You're going to want a better job someday and the same people you've called out here on the Slog will be the ones throwing your resume into the "Nope" pile.
Although the article does stink of victim-blame, to be fair, it sounds like it all comes from the spying neighbor's wife. [name redacted] seems to be just reporting what this backwards woman said.
@30 i'm gonna keep my eye on you. snitches get stiches, dig?
@37: The "Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack" headline was a reference to Dan's post, which is one in a series of posts with that title. And sorry, I do think it's hackish to represent one point of view -- the "girls" were wearing something "sexy," therefore it was their fault that their neighbor spied on them with binoculars -- without even bothering to talk to them. It's really, really lazy reporting.
@40 - Erica, don't act like you're upset that she didn't ask the other side their story (which, I assume you didn't call Clarridge to confirm since you're not a journalist). Your outrage was at her use of the word "girls". The bulk of your post was about her use of that word, and you even bolded that portion. At least be honest about that.
Erica, love ya sweetie but you are emberassing yourself in front of your peers.
I like to watch.
ECB: You are in no position to judge anyone's reporting. What the hell have you done to merit respect? Nothing. If you've got such great clips, why are you still working at the Stranger? Oh, and when you turn your resume in, make sure you include that lovely post about handicapped people taking express buses and how they slow down your trip and all.
@43, me too.
@43 and @45 -- I'm in my window right now, naked except for a Zinedine Zidane mask and an oven mitt, pleasuring myself with a Salumi mortadella.
Oven mitts are a gross turn-off.
Well, on a guy, maybe, Fnarf, but not on a sweetie ...
I am so reporting you to ECB!
Like @37, I worked with [name redacted] for several years. [name redacted] has more journalistic talent in her little finger than ECB couild ever have in her whole body if ECB had 9 lives like a cat.
[name redacted] is hard-working, conscientious, compassionate, and supportive. To know her and to work with her is to respect and admire her. For the likes of ECB, who is not a journalist at all, but just a shrill little shill and a journo wannabe, to call [name redacted] a hack is nothing but projection.
@50
Burn!
I like erica, but boy does she sound like a goofball today.
Yes, it's 2008, but was the Second Wave of feminism agreed upon by all in our nation, 1968-1978 or so? And has everybody stuck by all of the decisions and revelations of that time?
You're from TEXAS, no? Are you from a city in TX? Huge swaths of this country snoozed through ALL sorts of things in the 60's and 70's. That includes the female half the population, too. Esp. in the South. Yeesh.
I wish it was old news. It's not. That it's not news is NOT news. You know what else is not news? That a lot of people (including women, wisely or unwisely) tuned out feminism because they perceived it as a bunch of finger-wagging naggery. Rightly or wrongly.
Barbara Ehrnenreich said it years ago: Linguistic uplift is not the revolution.
Maybe I told this old joke already in the past month or two, or maybe I thought better of it. What the hey, here 'tis:
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!
I shudder to think what a ray of sunshine you'd be if you weren't such a cutie pie and men (and women) treated you shabbily because of it. You might be the type to write crotchety missives about the evil artwork of the Bookslut logo.
Again, the gender revolution didn't happen. Wish it did. Now what? Other than harping on innocuous linguistic stuff?
@45, me three.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.