it is clearly a joke that the cat was in there while it was off, much like you'd perhaps take a a funny picture of your friend in alcatrass (a historic prison) if you visit it.
but whether or not you think it's a joke, it's responsible journalism to show everything, good or bad, ethical or not, joke or not, that others do. if Apple is coming out with a new iToaster, Engadget would probably report on it. if the taser company came out with a new pocketable weapon, you'd probably think it would be troublesome and unethical, but it's important as a news source that it's made known. if someone comes out with a video about making a DIY electric fence, Engadget can be the one to make it known so people can debate whether on not it's ethical and whatnot.
so really, don't blame Engadget here, they're just the messenger, and as a *good* news source they are posting a variety of stuff, good, bad, and questionable.
and yes, it's a joke, get over it. think of it like a photo of yourself in a castle dungeon you visit in Europe. those dungeons were the site of brutal torture and inhumane activity, yet you have a picture of a *person* in there nowadays? omg!
Did any of those saying "animal cruelty" watch the video? the cat was in the cage in one scene after other silly suggestions. it was just one of many jokes. It's a good example of people freaking out of something taken out of context.
No, eqsf, it is most certainly NOT responsible journalism to show everything, good or bad, ethical or not. You haven't actually studied or even done the most cursory of research into journalism, have you?
Responsible journalists wouldn't publish someone's private medical records, they wouldn't publish false and defamatory accusations, they wouldn't publish material encouraging a criminal act, they wouldn't publish pictures of naked minors, they wouldn't publish material they've plagiarised, they wouldn't publish the identity of a CIA agent, and they wouldn't publish anything violent or sexually explicit in an open channel that minors can access.
And they wouldn't needlessly publish a "joke" that encourages criminal and tortuous acts, like this posting by Engadget. Animal torture happens, it is not a joke. Desensitising people makes it happen more frequently, it is not a joke.
Engadget and Metacafe ought to apologise for publishing this. No media outlet that takes itself seriously would have published it. It is not a joke, and that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's sense of humour.
Despite Engadget's update, it is clear that this does have something to do with making a cat prison, since that was one of the uses demonstrated in the video (yeah, I watched it before commenting).
You chose to put the photo of the cat at the top of the article, Engadget, you didn't choose the piggy bank or beer or wallet. So don't try and diminish your culpability or pretend that you were really "highlighting the absurdity of the imagery" (what crap), no, you actually recommended this product for those wishing to commit crimes on their pets, that's still there in your text.
You said, if you're having trouble building an electrified cat fence, try this. I want you to think about that. Would you have published a joke along the lines of, "If you're having trouble dismembering your friend, check out this electric-powered cleaver" ?
If at all responsible, you would have thought, "hold on, what if we do publish and just one kid out there doesn't 'get' the joke, and actually cuts off his friend's arm?" That is exactly what you should have thought about this "joke".
We aren't "considering" this a promotion of animal cruelty. It IS a promotion of animal cruelty. You ought to apologise, not apologise for your readers, how insulting and simultaneously buck-passing. You are at fault, not your readers - if they want to apologise they can do it themselves, they don't need you to do it for them.
It's a blog, not the Wall Street Journal. They aren't responsible for what they post. If you're offended, get over it. Ban Christmas while you're at it.
Not responsible for what they post? Are you insane?
Of course they're responsible for what they post - everyone is responsible for their actions! And legally, as well as ethically, yes they are responsible for what they post, there's no question about that.
It doesn't matter one whit whether this is Engadget or The Wall Street Journal, that makes no difference at all to the legal question, and is a pretty poor defence against the ethical problem - what, it's okay for Engadget to publish unacceptable material because they're not as widely-read as the Journal? That makes no sense at all.
I am amazed at the lack of journalistic understanding being portrayed here. The fact I'm lowest ranked and that you all don't like what I have to say, doesn't mean I'm wrong about journalists having responsibilities. It doesn't mean I'm wrong that there are many things that responsible journalists would refuse to publish.
If any of you want to actually go and find out the truth about that, instead of just defending Engadget with an uninformed mind, then I encourage you to do so.
Ban Christmas? Oh yes, there are just so many parallels between Christmas and electrocuting animals. What a great and useful comparison.
If you actually had a decent argument against what I said, then you would have offered it instead of that Christmas crap.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matt O @ Aug 30th 2007 1:10AM
you guys are assholes for putting this up
John Doe @ Aug 30th 2007 1:47AM
They may be assholes but you have no sense of humor.
eqsf @ Aug 30th 2007 7:20AM
it is clearly a joke that the cat was in there while it was off, much like you'd perhaps take a a funny picture of your friend in alcatrass (a historic prison) if you visit it.
but whether or not you think it's a joke, it's responsible journalism to show everything, good or bad, ethical or not, joke or not, that others do. if Apple is coming out with a new iToaster, Engadget would probably report on it. if the taser company came out with a new pocketable weapon, you'd probably think it would be troublesome and unethical, but it's important as a news source that it's made known. if someone comes out with a video about making a DIY electric fence, Engadget can be the one to make it known so people can debate whether on not it's ethical and whatnot.
so really, don't blame Engadget here, they're just the messenger, and as a *good* news source they are posting a variety of stuff, good, bad, and questionable.
and yes, it's a joke, get over it. think of it like a photo of yourself in a castle dungeon you visit in Europe. those dungeons were the site of brutal torture and inhumane activity, yet you have a picture of a *person* in there nowadays? omg!
Geir E @ Aug 30th 2007 9:08AM
Did any of those saying "animal cruelty" watch the video? the cat was in the cage in one scene after other silly suggestions. it was just one of many jokes. It's a good example of people freaking out of something taken out of context.
I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Aug 30th 2007 10:59PM
In China and Vietnam, they call that dinner in a frying pan...
Vanilla Spice @ Aug 30th 2007 11:28PM
No, eqsf, it is most certainly NOT responsible journalism to show everything, good or bad, ethical or not. You haven't actually studied or even done the most cursory of research into journalism, have you?
Responsible journalists wouldn't publish someone's private medical records, they wouldn't publish false and defamatory accusations, they wouldn't publish material encouraging a criminal act, they wouldn't publish pictures of naked minors, they wouldn't publish material they've plagiarised, they wouldn't publish the identity of a CIA agent, and they wouldn't publish anything violent or sexually explicit in an open channel that minors can access.
And they wouldn't needlessly publish a "joke" that encourages criminal and tortuous acts, like this posting by Engadget. Animal torture happens, it is not a joke. Desensitising people makes it happen more frequently, it is not a joke.
Engadget and Metacafe ought to apologise for publishing this. No media outlet that takes itself seriously would have published it. It is not a joke, and that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's sense of humour.
Despite Engadget's update, it is clear that this does have something to do with making a cat prison, since that was one of the uses demonstrated in the video (yeah, I watched it before commenting).
You chose to put the photo of the cat at the top of the article, Engadget, you didn't choose the piggy bank or beer or wallet. So don't try and diminish your culpability or pretend that you were really "highlighting the absurdity of the imagery" (what crap), no, you actually recommended this product for those wishing to commit crimes on their pets, that's still there in your text.
You said, if you're having trouble building an electrified cat fence, try this. I want you to think about that. Would you have published a joke along the lines of, "If you're having trouble dismembering your friend, check out this electric-powered cleaver" ?
If at all responsible, you would have thought, "hold on, what if we do publish and just one kid out there doesn't 'get' the joke, and actually cuts off his friend's arm?" That is exactly what you should have thought about this "joke".
We aren't "considering" this a promotion of animal cruelty. It IS a promotion of animal cruelty. You ought to apologise, not apologise for your readers, how insulting and simultaneously buck-passing. You are at fault, not your readers - if they want to apologise they can do it themselves, they don't need you to do it for them.
Andrew @ Aug 31st 2007 3:16AM
It's a blog, not the Wall Street Journal. They aren't responsible for what they post. If you're offended, get over it. Ban Christmas while you're at it.
Vanilla Spice @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:54PM
Not responsible for what they post? Are you insane?
Of course they're responsible for what they post - everyone is responsible for their actions! And legally, as well as ethically, yes they are responsible for what they post, there's no question about that.
It doesn't matter one whit whether this is Engadget or The Wall Street Journal, that makes no difference at all to the legal question, and is a pretty poor defence against the ethical problem - what, it's okay for Engadget to publish unacceptable material because they're not as widely-read as the Journal? That makes no sense at all.
I am amazed at the lack of journalistic understanding being portrayed here. The fact I'm lowest ranked and that you all don't like what I have to say, doesn't mean I'm wrong about journalists having responsibilities. It doesn't mean I'm wrong that there are many things that responsible journalists would refuse to publish.
If any of you want to actually go and find out the truth about that, instead of just defending Engadget with an uninformed mind, then I encourage you to do so.
Ban Christmas? Oh yes, there are just so many parallels between Christmas and electrocuting animals. What a great and useful comparison.
If you actually had a decent argument against what I said, then you would have offered it instead of that Christmas crap.