Comments on: Celerant CEO Ian Goldman Celebrated in the Wall Street Journal

By: Robert Hawthorne

Robert Hawthorne — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:54:04 +0000

You can get some free access to WSJ articles: http://www.congoo.com/netpass/install

you can see WSJ articles on their site: http://news.congoo.com

my tip of the day...

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:12:48 +0000

As far as I can tell, public shaming got a city construction contractor to stop storing its materials in a bike lane, even as those materials were piling up and obstructing the nearby crosswalk:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43954081@N00/361593183/

Jennifer Saranow, eat your heart out!

By: ABG

ABG — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:15:10 +0000

Congratulations, Adam! WeirdoWatch.com is available!

http://www.register.com/retail/product/domain/searchresults.rcmx;jsessionid=AA750E9CFCDD4E7426640DF9CC0C8E4B.euapp03?action=searchresults&formName=box&searchString=weirdowatch&selectedTLDs=.com&newCustomer.x=0&newCustomer.y=0

(In case I failed to set off anyone's sarcasm detectors, I don't think watching weirdos is a good idea. I get enough trouble as it is.)

By: brent

brent — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:41:12 +0000

I believe the danger of this piece is in how it easily allows the reader to identify with the motorist- "That could have been me driving recklessly and hitting someone. Now these people have the audacity to create consequences!â€

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:28:59 +0000

This could have been an interesting article. I don't feel it really had any angle that was obvious. I did not find it to be malicious or otherwise. However, I do find it a bit of a let down that the whole issue was essentially treated so flippantly. Putting legitimate sites that track illegal or dangerous problems along side some guy video taping someone stealing his newspaper, or some woman's loud cell phone just downplays the benefit of these sites. I am not sure what the motivation for this story was, but I am starting to think it was meant to be a light hearted culture piece?? Disappointing, but I guess could have been worse.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:26:19 +0000

I asked a few people who read the article whether they thought Saranow was pro-shamers or pro-miscreants. Oddly, the responses were across the map. Certainly, Saranow -- intentionally or not -- let Mr. IDRVFAST hang himself. And, the picture didn't help him.

My favorite quote, alluded to above, was from Mr. IDRVFAST:

There is no accountability [online].

As for the Streetsblog part of the story, I thought it cynical that the step-by-step account of Goldman's outing left out that I non-anonymously contacted Goldman. That certainly cuts against the thesis that there's no accountability.

Of course, it might just be sour grapes on my part for not getting a moment of fame in the WSJ. (Mordecai, that last sentence is meant to be sarcastic.)

I really do think that the article failed to offer perspective of the type offered by Slick. That there are very few public shaming examples and just a ton of bad driving.

Finally, I note with some amusement that Saranow wasn't able to find a single example of someone who was wrongfully shamed (except the detail-less and ambiguous account of the alleged cuckolder).

By: Mordecai

Mordecai — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:10:36 +0000

sigh... on the internet, not only can't you tell if someone is a dog, you also can't detect sarcasm at 10 paces. Sorry about that, Aaron. I think I was thrown off by the slightly defensive tone of the rest of your post.

By: AD

AD — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:04:14 +0000

Orcutt, great point. That's exactly right.

By: Aaron Naparstek

Aaron Naparstek — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:46:46 +0000

Hey Mordecai,

Actually the headline was meant as sarcasm. I'm sure this isn't how the CEO of a small tech company would prefer to be "celebrated" in the WSJ.

By: Orcutt

Orcutt — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:26:48 +0000

One of the undercurrents behind the article is that American society has a very hard time with being held accountable at the wheel. That's why the NYPD does next to nothing on traffic law enforcement and why so many freak out at the idea of red light and speed cameras. A big part of the American middle class likes its traffic law enforcement to be as minimal and inefficient as possible. (Also note recent NY Times piece on parking [enforcement] rage in SF).

By: P

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:51:44 +0000

In any case it's good to know that WSJ writers stop by Streetsblog. If they would perhaps take on some of the more pressing issues it would be even better.

By: Mordecai

Mordecai — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:50:59 +0000

I didn't take the article as "celebrating" Goldman at all. Sure, it gave his side of the story, as did Streetsblog, but, bluntly, he's now had his behavior exposed to all of his business partners, and probably many of his personal friends as well. I would guess that a vanishingly small fraction of them read Streetsblog, but that many or most read the WSJ. In reply to the question of whether Saranow didn't prove her point, I think this is a classic case of having to put on a thin veneer of disapproval in order to cover a juicy scandal story: an old tabloid trick, no? The huge numbers of details that could have been left out points in that direction. (They would have anonymized the "victims" if they had been truly concerned about them.) The larger question of whether and when WierdoWatch.com shows up is a very good one which I don't think anyone can quite predict.

By: rhubarbpie

rhubarbpie — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:33:53 +0000

In spite of the article's premise (which wasn't really supported by the examples Saranow used), I thought Goldman came off looking pretty bad once again.

I couldn't tell whether Saranow had wanted to write a different piece and an editor had gotten ahold of the piece and changed it, or whether this was her own premise that she failed to prove.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:00:15 +0000

The author elided the distinction between illegal conduct that puts others in physical danger and truly trivial acts like loud cell phone conversations, apparently to enhance the sweep of the story. She also ignored the extent to which face-to-face confrontations are used in conjunction with online shaming or for practical reasons is not possible, in order to construst her "surreptitious antisocial weirdo" stereotype. Where does one "blogslap" bad journalism?

By: Slick

Slick — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:26:17 +0000

"trivial transgressions"!!!!?????

Speed is the number 1 cause of the 43,000 traffic DEATHS that happened in America last year. Stopping speeding is the reason that Copenhagen went from 120 traffic deaths a year to 12.

TRIVIAL?!

Classic quote from the self-important guy with the vanity plate reads "IDRVFAST" and is called out for risking others lives by driving crazy: "Who are they to decide what is safe or not?"

This is a irresponsible, sensational, reprehensible attempt to sell newspapers.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:11:29 +0000

Public information is public information. The fact that people can find and utilize more public information nowadays than in the past is a positive development, not a negative one. Shaming fellow citizens who behave unacceptably is a time-honored way of maintaining civility in society. Of course, there's the flip side of the same coin, when you just like wearing different clothing or certain music or whatever, and everyone shames or shuns you because you're different... But until there are sites called "WeirdoWatch.com" and "SpotTheLooney.net" I think we're safe.

By: Doc Barnett

Doc Barnett — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:51:57 +0000

No matter how hard Jennifer works to tar-and-feather the tar-and-featherers, she'll fail. The public loves the "shaming" biz, as those working on the other end of the NYC daily spectrum know full well. My favorite part is her lament that you can't litigate to oblivion "if the accusations in postings are true." The injustice! Whatever will wealthy a-holes do in this nightmare future of small town accountability in the big city?

By: Maria

Maria — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:14:43 +0000

So, this is an interesting angle. It seems like Saranow is saying that the loud, asocial person yapping on her cell phone in public, the 50-year-old guy stealing newspapers from his neighbor and sociopathic motorists who endanger other people are all, essentially, NORMAL while these online communities that are sprouting up and doing what old fashioned offline communities once did to enforce civility and social norms are â€œweird and creepyâ€ and â€œvigilantesâ€ and â€œshame sites.â€

By: P

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:10:38 +0000

Jennifer Saranow and I miss the days when you could assault people in anonymity.