Ask HN: Is TMZ more "honorable" than TechCrunch?
Everyone read TechCrunch's reasons for publishing stolen internal Twitter documents. Now, there's a "stolen" video of ESPN's Erin Andrews that's being shopped around to places like TMZ. And since I happen to watch TMZ, I've noticed Harvey Levin mention over the last couple of days that he won't air any of the footage b/c it's a blatant invasion of privacy.
It goes without saying that there's a difference b/w internal documents and a nude video, but both are stolen and both are "newsworthy" (in a sense that readers want to read/watch them). I just wonder where TC and others draw the line. In fact, maybe TMZ should've gone one step further and not even mention the video exists in the first place.
3 comments
[ 420 ms ] story [ 2438 ms ] threadAre there any documented instances of that ?
Is it ok to do something because otherwise somebody else would do it instead ?
Mentioning something exists is not the same as getting tons of mileage out of stolen property.
Btw, the malware writers will have a field day with the search terms 'erin andrews video'.