Needing to know

It’s a long-running storyline cliché in chick-flicks: one of the female leads is hurt so badly by a man… that when she turns to her girlfriend for a shoulder to cry on, the friend then with sharp concern demands to know what He did, and the hurt-ee pleads, “I can’t talk about it right now- just be my friend and hold me while I cry.”

The natural human instinct to comfort tends to trump the urge to know details, when situations like this happen in real life.

The distress on the hurt person’s face is clear, and the abstract darkness hinging on no one specific detail- but clearly rooted in deep pain- palpable, so much so that asking for details would clearly violate that trust they have in you to care about their heart first and foremost, and details about how a douchebag of a formerly-trusted person treated them, second.

The urge to know is also innately human- but understanding the time and place for silent support that sometimes never leads to learning the full details behind an upsetting situation- this is not innately human, but it is a learned support mechanism that most adults develop in their teenage years, and grow an increased respect for onward in life, namely because at one point or another we’ve all needed to be on the other side of that fence in coping with one or more intense and deeply upsetting situations of our own. Sometimes the details are just too painful to discuss; sometimes they’re just flat-out embarrassing; sometimes it’s a preventative measure to not fuel a drama one-up spin-cycle; and sometimes a fear for physical safety by the hurting-party is also a factor.

The politics of full disclosure and privacy issues, both at the government level and in the news media, have been heated- increasingly so, since mass-media (Television and the Internet, namely) have made it possible for major cover-ups of huge scandals, to find those covers briskly removed and in a moment exposed, to millions; moreso, in the McCarthy’ist revival of government that the Bush/Cheney administration has been.

In the media boom of the internet, this somewhat straightforward boxing match of a debate has digressed into a cacophony of ideas and demands not unlike the floor of the NYSE; a digression in terms of the sheer volume of the backs-and-forths, namecalling, mud-slinging, and ethically-righteous claims… many of which violate other ethics, in tandem with the martyr-esque soapbox shouting.

One of the most memorable moments for me in the 9/11 TV News coverage (other than how 1984ish and over the top it was), was when Dan Rather got tears in his eyes that then ran down his face, while his lips quivered and he fought to maintain composure and continue his professional anchorman face, during the CBS News coverage. Later that week in an appearance on the David Letterman Show when discussing this- he just lost it, and let-loose sobbing- full body shakes, uncontrollable wails, the works. David Letterman then broke his Talk Show Host composure to provide comfort, and for a poignant moment in broadcast television, the TV News Anchorman and the Talk Show Host just dissolved their professional fronts- which of course exist 99% of the time for very good reasons- and for a few moments, were just two bereaved humans, comforting one another and sharing a very deserved break from their professional identities, to just be human for a few moments.

The cameras kept rolling… and the viewing audience for that moment saw something that to me was of much greater value, than any of the 24/7 bullshit that most of the networks kept the public hypnotized with in the days and weeks following 9/11. This value: that the human information-machines who stand on sand platforms of professionalism, ethics and integrity, that could crumble with the slightest slip; that for just a brief moment, the public saw them for what at their deepest levels they are: human.

These professional fronts that journalists and other public information providers/distributors put up to distinguish their professional selves from their personal selves, are un-deniably important. Professional ethics and full transparency with where their information comes from, are also critically important; however, journalists who’ve “cut their teeth” over the years with the public and with the publications they represent, at times, do need to break stories that cite anonymous sources- and when this happens, most of the time the anonymous source also provides enough tandem evidence that *can* be publicly substantiated, to validate the maintained anonymity of the source.

Other times- and this is one of the rare “exceptions to the rule,” journalists find themselves in a situation that muddles their identity-boundary of personal/professional, and a drastic measure needs to be taken place to maintain their own personal/professional privacy, or the privacy of a source. Whenever this is done to protect the privacy of a source, the proven-journalist is almost always heralded as a hero, or as “just doing their job.”

When the journalist does this to protect their own privacy- or, to protect the integrity of their publication in a private fashion because the threat against the publication’s integrity is such a dramatic shitstorm, could threaten the physical safety of themselves/their colleagues, or could just downright be personally embarrassing in such a way that wouldn’t diminish their professional credibility directly- but would cause individuals great personal embarrassment- the public who play for the “fundamentalist ethics police” team always clamp down on these latter situations… presuming the humans behind our media to be machines who operate on a binary code of reason & actions- and I gotta ask, “Why?!”

No, journalists and other information providers (bloggers, an example) are not our close personal friends in tears and shaking with grief because a douchebag ex-boyfriend did something so unfathomably cruel that they just can’t re-tell the story, and instead need to just be held and comforted and not asked for details; but we can’t forget: they are human, and to expect the opposite, unequivocally all the time, is equally un-reasonable.

Shut the hell up and get to the damn point: I’m writing this piece, dismayed, frustrated and saddened, by the readership outcry against BoingBoing’s decision to un-publish pieces that included, referenced, or were contributed in part to, by Violet Blue. Yes- as evidenced by my comment (#1260, to the specific article), Violet has indeed behaved in such a fashion that crosses many ethical boundaries… and so for BB’s reason cited for this unpublishing “Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her,” they were more than well within their rights.

Unfortunately- I’m the only person among about a dozen that I know of, who was willing to come forward with their story. I’ve since spoken with others in this hallowed “Survivors of Violet Blue” club, and most have cited personal pain, and a simple un-readiness to make such a bold step- which, as a human being and a friend, I gotta respect. It was my time to “come out,” and it was something I felt strongly about wanting to do… and like cutting a foot-and-a-half of my hair off a year ago- it was something that needed to happen, and only should have happened, when I felt strongly that the time was right- and, that the time was mine to own.

I also have personal insights, into BB’s credibility, that many others don’t. I’ve given them insights into a few stories they’ve run in the past- and always, have been asked clearly and with the “Yes or No are perfectly acceptable answers” tone, if they could run my tipoffs/quotes, and attribute me as a source.

I once also shared a very confidential and ‘dealbreaker’ insight about legislation I was familiar with thru my job, with one of the BB editors, to give them further insights into stories of tech-industry support for this legislation, that I was working on for a past employer. I did this to simply provide the editor with background, so that they would understand the non-confidential details they were writing about in a bigger-picture context. The BB editor I was corresponding with badly wanted to publish what I’d shared with them- and I asked the editor to please not, because I only shared the details for contextual comprehension of the other stuff.

The editor wrote back, noting the importance of the information I’d provided, and asked if it could please be published anonymously- and again, I stated that it was a strong preference of mine that it not be- namely, because I also felt weird divulging information about a project that certainly wasn’t Spanish Inquisition style top-secret… but it was confidential. How’d it shake out? None, not a paraphrased, tweeked, allusionary word, ended-up published- and if my memory serves me correctly, the story was dropped (clarification: dropped, meaning “not further continued,” and not “un-published”) from BB coverage.

As a tech professional who takes her NDAs very seriously- not for fear of legal repercussions, but just because my employers trust me and I value that tremendously- this meant the world. Few bloggers or news outlets would have done the same- so, to BB, thanks- and to the public who continues to doubt BB’s commitment to integrity- take that, as another testimonial from yours truly, that y’all just need to shut the hell up… and give them their space to recover from an upsetting “breakup” with a volatile former contributor/collaborator.

No, they’re not your best friend crying from a boy’s lousy actions- but they are human beings… and their hearts are in a place, not too far off… and for the reasons I’ve stated, and many more reasons that many more can attest to- they have cut their teeth and earned their credibility chops to be trusted in this rare instance of non-transparency- so, yeah.

Quoting Forrest Gump: … and that’s all I’ve got to say, about that.