AdoredTV responds to PC Perspective's response to Journalistic Ethics Accusations and The Right To Reply

[AlTech]

Note to Moderators: This TNR post is new and is not a retoast of the previous thread.

 

PC Perspective has responded to the journalistic ethics accusations video (from herein "accusations video") from AdoredTV published on January 25th.

 

Firstly, PC Perspective and their agents, officers, employees and volunteers (from herein "PC Per") claims they were not given the right to reply and that AdoredTV should have  contacted them prior to the accusations video being uploaded. This is not a legal requirement in the EU (where AdoredTV is located) and thus AdoredTV did not need to have contacted PC Per before the accusations video was uploaded.

 

AdoredTV has produced a video titled "PC Perspective's Right to Reply" (from herein "reply video").

 

In the reply video, PC Per complains that the information from the accusations video has the potential to cause harm to the PC Per team, Ryan Shrout and his family. PC Per also states that Ryan Shrout is now concerned about the safety of him and his family.

 

PC Per requested the accusation video to be made private.

 

PC Per has also refuted many of the claims made. However, they refused to show accountability and were unwilling to comply with AdoredTV's requests if they wanted the accusations video to remain private.

 

AdoredTV felt that PC Per had threatened them when PC Per stated they would prefer the video to be private to avoid putting others at risk.

 

PC Per claims they were DDOSed and/or photos of their house on Google Maps were circulating around the internet. PC Per finally published the whole back and forth communication on Reddit without telling AdoredTV about this.

 

And AdoredTV officially published the reply video accordingly and made the accusations video public once more.

 

Honestly, I've lost whatever respect I had for PC Per. AdoredTV is definitely in the right imho.

 

Source:

 

[Dabombinable]

Whomever is handling this, really isn't being professional.

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Whomever is handling this, really isn't being professional.

On which side?

 

On PC Per's side it's Ryan Shrout (the owner of the publication and also the owner of Shrout Research).

[MyName13]

Adored should really just STFU.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

Adored should really just STFU.

Why? PC Per acted unprofessionally and were unethical.

[SuperShires]

3 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Adored should really just STFU.

How old are you? like 12? what a terrible response.

[johnukguy]

10 minutes ago, SuperShires said:

How old are you? like 12? what a terrible response.

People don't like the fact that they've been shown to be gullible. It's understandable and Jim has well and truly busted some of those who are consistently bs'ing their audience. Of course the same people who whine about that usually have no real factual, substantive points to raise to counter what he says.

[Trixanity]

Honestly, neither side gave me a positive impression in this matter.

 

PCPer did something wrong to begin with (no disclosure, conflicts of interest) and got called out rightfully so. Were there malicious intent? Probably not.

 

However, I find a lot of issue with how this played out. AdoredTV was overly aggressive and belligerent from the start and through out. It felt almost tabloid-like. PCPer wasn't very quick to respond and fix what I find obvious. Like there was some stalling and perhaps ignorant of wrongdoing. 

 

I don't see where AdoredTV would find any threats. The only point made about safety was in regards to potential doxxing or swatting from AdoredTV viewers from what I can tell.

 

I find that AdoredTV appeared to want a conflict in both the tone employed and in the quick upload of a video before any reply could be made (and the constant public/private toggling would indicate that too).

 

Of course there is also the fact that companies, organisations and even people tend to try fly under the radar when there are problems and often refuse to do anything to correct things until being called out publically at which point the tune changes over night and everything somehow gets solved. It's seen so frequently that a person gets ignored or can't get their due and then they go to the media and all of a sudden they play ball. Of course the argument could be made they only play ball for the sake of publicity and regardless of right or wrong.

 

This was handled poorly all around. I'm not impressed.

[Energycore]

42 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Note to Moderators: This TNR post is new and is not a retoast of the previous thread.

I think you should just #update the last thread because it's the same bit of news, just a new video about it. That's the same way we'd do updated news otherwise. We might merge the threads if you don't mind.

[Energycore]

Just now, Trixanity said:

I find that AdoredTV appeared to want a conflict in both the tone employed and in the quick upload of a video before any reply could be made (and the constant public/private toggling would indicate that too).

I think Adored was mad at PcPer over some other dispute on Twitter. And not to generalize too much, but you don't rouse a Scotsman or they will bring the fight to you. I think that's what happened here.

[AlTech]

4 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I think you should just #update the last thread because it's the same bit of news, just a new video about it. That's the same way we'd do updated news otherwise. We might merge the threads if you don't mind.

The last thread isn't mine and this is different. You could classify it as an update but the amount of new information here is subsantial enough that I felt a new post could be made to explain all the new info and what's gone on.

 

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I think Adored was mad at PcPer over some other dispute on Twitter. And not to generalize too much, but you don't rouse a Scotsman or they will bring the fight to you. I think that's what happened here.

Nope.

 

AdoredTV was calling out PC Per for violating journalistic ethics as covered previously in a different thread. This thread focusses on PC Per's reaction (and let me tell you they were not happy about it and dragged it on a lot) and how AdoredTV responded to it. This thread also talks a bit about the Right To Reply, a regulation in media laws regarding journalism.

[Delicieuxz]

I have no idea what prompted this discourse between PC Perspective and Adored, as I haven't looked into it. However, watching the OP video, this stands out to me:

 

Journalistic standards / ethical behaviour and the Council of Europe recommendation are not really the same thing.

 

Journalistic ethics are the natural understanding of what is right and fair. The Council of Europe recommendation is a compilation of a minimal standard it suggests people should abide by, for the sake of encouraging fair conduct - but it isn't the law on what's right and fair.

 

It looks to me like PC Perspective contacted Adored and petitioned Adored over what is believes would have been the fair thing to do. The PC Perspective message to the Adored person doesn't say that their 'right to reply' should exist on some legal ground, but, to me, reads as though they're saying it should exist on grounds of basic fairness.

 

Adored responded by saying 'doesn't count, this suggestive document says fairness doesn't apply in EU content to non-EU residents'. It's not really a counter-argument that Adored gave in response, but a childish excuse.

[Energycore]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

The last thread isn't mine and this is different. You could classify it as an update but the amount of new information here is subsantial enough that I felt a new post be made to explain all the new info.

Sounds good.

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

Nope.

 

AdoredTV was calling out PC Per for violating journalistic ethics as covered previously in a different thread. This thread focusses on PC Per's reaction (and let me tell you they were not concise) and how AdoredTV responded to it.

This was my interpretation of why the first video was put up. I think we can all agree that the aftermath of that was poorly handled by both parties, Adored admits to poorly handling the situation at the end of the second video.

[AlTech]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

I have no idea what prompted this discourse between PC Perspective and Adored, as I haven't looked into it. However, watching the OP video, this stands out to me:

 

Journalistic standards / ethical behaviour and the Council of Europe recommendation are not really the same thing.

Yes. The Council of Europe was referenced to help decide whether AdoredTV was required by law to give PC Per the right to reply and in what fashion the right to reply was allowed

 

Journalistic Ethics and Standards is totally different.

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

Journalistic ethics are the natural understanding of what is right and fair. The Council of Europe recommendation is a compilation of a minimal standard it suggests people should abide by, for the sake of encouraging fair conduct - but it isn't the law on what's right and fair.

Again, see above.

[Trixanity]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

The last thread isn't mine and this is different. You could classify it as an update but the amount of new information here is subsantial enough that I felt a new post be made to explain all the new info.

 

Nope.

 

AdoredTV was calling out PC Per for violating journalistic ethics as covered previously in a different thread. This thread focusses on PC Per's reaction (and let me tell you they were not concise) and how AdoredTV responded to it.

Well, they both violated ethics though.

PCPer for not disclosing ties to corporations and not giving full disclosure of the context in which reviews were made. On the other hand: AdoredTV did not allow PCPer to respond before publication or a chance to correct and issue a statement. He could have published after that just fine without giving PCPer a free pass.

[Delicieuxz]

8 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Yes. The Council of Europe was referenced to help decide whether AdoredTV was required by law to give PC Per the right to reply and in what fashion the right to reply was allowed

The nature of the PC Perspective message to Adored doesn't include the 'required by law' part, that I saw. Journalistic ethics still exist even without law. So, responding with 'not required by law' on a matter of basic fairness is dismissing the point using a technicality as an excuse.

 

Also, the Council of Europe "recommendation" doesn't sound as though it's law, since it says "recommendation" in the title. It sounded to me like PC Perspective were not appealing to law, but to journalistic ethics

 

I still haven't researched the back-story to all of this, so I'm not commenting on whether PC Perspective should have been given a chance to respond. Only that the counter-argument from Adored for not giving them a right to respond doesn't seem to be addressing the PC Perspective message on the same level.

 

[AlTech]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

The nature of the PC Perspective message to Adored doesn't include the 'required by law' part, that I saw. Journalistic ethics still exist even without law. So, responding that 'not required by law' on a matter of basic fairness is dismissing the point using a technicality as an excuse.

No?

 

PC Per complained that the Right To Reply said that PC Per should have been contacted before the accusations video became public. AdoredTV looked up the legislation to check who was correct. And AdoredTV was not required to contact PC Per before publishing the accusations video as a matter of law. MY understanding (and presumably AdoredTV's understanding) was that PC Per wasn't talking about ethics in the Right To Reply portion but rather a legal requirement.

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

Also, the Council of Europe "recommendation" doesn't sound as though it's law, since it says "recommendation" in the title.

There is a part which comes under a Media related law passed in the EU in 2004 which is covered in the reply video.

[mr moose]

The other thread has this video and the link to the CC of pcpers's response.  Which I urge people to read rather than just listen to adored's version of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

30 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

No?

 

PC Per complained that the Right To Reply said that PC Per should have been contacted before the accusations video became public.

Some 'Right to Reply' law vs an understood fairness and journalistic ethic granting a "right to reply" to an accused party

 

PCP said that, while on the subject of journalistic standards (not necessarily law, and without law being mentioned), by the same measure, they should have a "right to reply". PCP did not say a Right to Reply (indicating some official law or document).

 

The PCP message uses the words "seems unfair", "code of ethics of journalism"... and not 'required by law'. There is no "code of ethics of journalism legal document". So, I think that PCP was referring to the understanding of good journalism and fairness, and not a legal document.

 

 

As I edited into my previous comment, I still haven't researched the back-story to all of this, so I'm not commenting on whether PC Perspective should have been given a chance to respond. Only that the counter-argument from Adored for not giving them a right to respond seems to be ignoring the PC Perspective comment's point and not responding to it on the same level that it was given.

 

Quote

AdoredTV looked up the legislation to check who was correct. And AdoredTV was not required to contact PC Per before publishing the accusations video as a matter of law. MY understanding (and presumably AdoredTV's understanding) was that PC Per wasn't talking about ethics in the Right To Reply portion but rather a legal requirement.

There is a part which comes under a Media related law passed in the EU in 2004 which is covered in the reply video.

PCP did not argue that Adored was required to contact them, but that it, to them, seemed unfair that they did not. They did not appeal to Adored on the basis of law, but on the basis of fairness, which would make the Adored response on the basis of what the law says (though the Council of Europe recommendation is not a law, anyway) moot.

 

 

There may be a part of the Adored video talking about a media-related law later on, but the part of the video I've brought up discusses a Council of Europe "recommendation", adopted in 2004. The Council of Europe passes resolutions and recommendations, and they aren't equally binding:

 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/enter/the-recommendation

Quote

 

What is a Recommendation?

 

The Committee of Ministers is the main decision making body of the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers elaborates recommendations for the member states of the Council of Europe on matters that concern human rights, democracy or the rule of law. A recommendation is not binding to the member states; however, it provides a policy framework and proposals that governments can implement on the national level.

 

 

So, it sounds as though the recommendation doesn't apply to EU citizens directly, and isn't binding to EU nations, but that it is suggested information meant to help EU member states come up basic standards for their own domestic laws. Adored should have brought up Scotland's media relations law, if anything, since the CoE recommendation doesn't apply to him, anyway. But bringing Scotland's domestic media law would still be side-stepping the message that PCP sent to Adored, which, to me, reads like it's a petition for basic understood fairness, and not law.

[MyName13]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

Why? PC Per acted unprofessionally and were unethical.

Look at the list of his videos, he should just stay quiet.

 

1 hour ago, SuperShires said:

How old are you? like 12? what a terrible response.

That's the age of his viewers.

1 hour ago, johnukguy said:

People don't like the fact that they've been shown to be gullible. It's understandable and Jim has well and truly busted some of those who are consistently bs'ing their audience. Of course the same people who whine about that usually have no real factual, substantive points to raise to counter what he says.

Which is exactly what he is doing...

[johnukguy]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Look at the list of his videos, he should just stay quiet.

 

That's the age of his viewers.

Which is exactly what he is doing...

We're still waiting on you to point to any substantive, factual errors that he's made and you still can't provide any. That says it all really. Have you even watched the videos in question, as you seem to have no real idea what he's saying?

[johnukguy]

50 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

On the other hand: AdoredTV did not allow PCPer to respond before publication or a chance to correct and issue a statement. He could have published after that just fine without giving PCPer a free pass.

Journalists don't always allow a response before publication. The guidelines set out that responses generally be made after publication. There is no duty to warn people beforehand if they've been busted for doing something shady. At least outside of the US, those caught being unethical don't get a say beyond presenting any relevant facts that substantiate their position. Journalists don't run stories by people to see if they agree or not. That's PR, not journalism. According to the Code of Press Ethics which was established by the Media Organizations Convention, "The right to reply is granted when this request is considered to be justified and reasonable." It's not an automatic right, for everything, before publication, but something that is offered by the journalist, when appropriate, at their discretion.

[Delicieuxz]

7 minutes ago, johnukguy said:

We're still waiting on you to point to any substantive, factual errors that he's made and you still can't provide any. That says it all really. Have you even watched the videos in question, as you seem to have no real idea what he's saying?

I can point one out:

 

The AdoredTV video on a 'right to reply' 'calls the European Council recommendation a resolution, when it is not a resolution, but a recommendation. It is non-binding upon anyone, and it isn't meant for EU citizens to use as an authority, but for EU member state governments to use as premise thought material to help guide them in designing their own domestic media relations laws.

 

The whole appeal to this CoE recommendation that AdoredTV makes in their response video is moot, being not relevant to PCP's message to AdoredTV.

[johnukguy]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

I can point one out:

 

The AdoredTV video on a 'right to reply' 'calls the European Council recommendation a resolution, when it is not a resolution, but a recommendation. It is non-binding upon anyone, and it isn't meant for EU citizens to use as an authority, but for EU member state governments to use as premise thought material to help guide them in designing their own domestic media relations laws.

 

The whole appeal to this CoE recommendation that AdoredTV makes in their response video is moot, being not relevant to PCP's message to AdoredTV.

It is moot, if it's being argued as being somehow legally binding yes, but then Adored is pointing more to established precedent, not to something legally binding, which does indeed make it relevant, since EU journalists are familiar with what he's pointing to. And yes, you raise a fair point, though itself now addressed, but I was asking the person trolling to provide something substantive, which he/she/it has still failed to do.

[David89]

Personally, i think Adored TV is absolutely in the Right here. I have done Tech Journalism a few years ago and it's one hell of a balancing act sometimes. Not because of the content, but because of what you would like to have as a result. So it's very easy to "tune" the results in various ways.

 

However, this whole thing has been blown out of proportions and yes, Jim did react harsh and very strict in his responses to PCPer. Is that a problem? No. Is it unfair? Maybe. Does this make him a hypocrite? No, not in my opinion, because the underlying theme is different. He called out PCPer based on published Information by them - with Facts against the arguments/results made by PCPer. The Medium is irrelevant, so it could also be an article in a local newspaper - PCPer published that Information knowingly and Jims calling out is just as valid.