Name of NYT journalist(s) harrassing us

[Koppite]

I'm somewhat out of the loop, being only an occasional visitor (though a member since back when it was a subreddit), so I missed the whole NYT attempted takedown of this site, its character assassination of the Admin and its continuing damage to the mental health and agency of the members here.

Anyway I was wondering if anyone had the name of those at the NYT responsible for this disgraceful attack. I would like to contact them directly to draw attention to the damage they have done and ask them for an apology or at least an explanation of what the hell they thought they were achieving.

Failing that, I would like to (as a private citizen and not on behalf of this site) publicise their own names on social media and see how they like being investigated and villified.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

Anyway I was wondering if anyone had the name of those at the NYT responsible for this disgraceful attack. I would like to contact them directly to draw attention to the damage they have done and ask them for an apology or at least an explanation of what the hell they thought they were achieving.

They won't care.

Failing that, I would like to (as a private citizen and not on behalf of this site) publicise their own names on social media and see how they like being investigated and villified.

Investigate how? Pretty sure their names are already attached to the article, as well...

 

[Simba]

Heres their names

Megan Twohey
Gabriel J.X. Dance
Carrie Goldberg

Tho i wouldnt hold your breath. I posted myself on my support ss pages n even tagged them and never got an answer whatsoever.. "ignorance is bliss" apparently

 

[omoidarui]

Carrie Goldberg

How is she involved?

 

[LastFlowers]

J.X. Dance

Sounds like a kpop group

 

[Simba]

How is she involved?

She's the one who put those papers for government no ?
Plus she's all over that NYT article n stuff

 

[sullen-girl1]

That article is peasant journalism at it's finest. Selling/slamming people's actual fucking lives and trauma for a bit of £££. I guess what else do we expect from society?

 

[omoidarui]

She's the one who put those papers for government no ?
Plus she's all over that NYT article n stuff

i can't find her name in the article and she's not a journalist

i thought she was just some really salty person on twitter xd she's actually an attorney

 

[Interloper]

Think it's mostly megan, she was on that podcast episode also.

 

[TheBestUsernameEver]

I'm somewhat out of the loop, being only an occasional visitor (though a member since back when it was a subreddit), so I missed the whole NYT attempted takedown of this site, its character assassination of the Admin and its continuing damage to the mental health and agency of the members here.

Anyway I was wondering if anyone had the name of those at the NYT responsible for this disgraceful attack. I would like to contact them directly to draw attention to the damage they have done and ask them for an apology or at least an explanation of what the hell they thought they were achieving.

Failing that, I would like to (as a private citizen and not on behalf of this site) publicise their own names on social media and see how they like being investigated and villified.

The idea behind doxxing is that you publish information that is not already in the public domain.

Publishing their names, which are already plastered all over the internet, is not doxxing!

 

[Depressed Cat]

The NYT is a filthy rag, but I have to admit that its poisonous tentacles reach out far beyond the USA.

Although I discovered this forum from the NYT hit piece (when I was searching online for a CTB method), today I came to know that the NYT article was re-published across the world in many newspapers & websites, including a prominent newspaper in my country.

Ironically, I think this widespread re-publication of the NYT's disgraceful article on SS is leading more and more folks from across the world to join this forum.

Marquis and Serge are becoming world famous, if they weren't already.

 

[Grey-zoner]

Not sure there's anything to dox here, their names as reporters are public, and they probably don't give a damn what we think about them.

 

[Sherri]

Do you plan to write to him?

 

[Snake of Eden]

With all honesty I dont see any benefit to contacting NYT or its journalist who wrote about this website. They are not somehow misguided or confused. They chose to write their report in a total skewed tone. It is very naive to think they would somehow change their opinions or seek forgiveness for what they purposefully got themselves in. Also what they have done doesnt qualify as harrassement. I will be careful with my wording for future reference

 

[LastLoveLetter]

I agree with @zeroornothing that contacting these individuals is very unlikely to yield desirable results. I say this as someone who seriously considered writing to them and ultimately decided against it. The way they composed their article was deliberate, they were presenting a very specific narrative about this site and those who use it and featured multiple interviews with those who have been trying to have the site taken down.

They are not going to abruptly change their position after hearing from members. Their position is the perspective of the majority towards suicide and communities of this nature. It is unrealistic to expect them to deviate from that and adopt a very different take that is likely to cause far more controversy, no matter how heartfelt, convincing and well-written your response may be. Those who have already contacted The New York Times have received generic, scripted responses in return so far.

I understand the anger, disappointment, fear and frustration of members. I understand the anxiety and upheaval such articles can cause for the community, especially after the doxxing of the forum's founders. However, I feel that the wisest approach is to disengage. If they wanted to listen, they already would have done so. The New York Times stated that reporters analysed more than 1.2 million messages. If they could not find a single redeemable quality about this site, identify or highlight any of the underlying issues leading to suicide (which are frequently discussed here) or understand why people are brought to this forum and often feel safer here than they do on other social media platforms, they never will. It's not like this information is not readily available to those accessing our posts.

Certain types of communication can also cause further damage, rather than support the forum. For example, harassment, insults and mud-slinging will harm instead of help. There are already numerous examples of this happening from members arguing with the activists and families trying to take down the site. The conduct of the minority can be used against the site as a whole.

While I do hold some passionate and strong views about this topic, I have personally shifted my focus to protecting the forum, to reassuring its members and to supporting the community during this difficult time, and after this rough period has passed.

 

[Midgardsorm]

As people that supports the freedom of speech and freedom of choice, the act of simply writing to the journalist might sound bad for us.

It's not like their opinion will change and even if they do, it's not like they will write another article or prevent writing again if time and people demand it.
They did what they are supposed to do, even though the article showed a very distorted reality of what actually is this website and even some false information of what happens here.

We defend our point by simply being ourselves. There has been many attacks on journalists on the recent years and not only that does not represent our policy here as it also contradicts with what we preach.

 

[Simba]

i can't find her name in the article and she's not a journalist

i thought she was just some really salty person on twitter xd she's actually an attorney

yea she's that lawyer person that sent the papers to government or something n she and FT26 are "friends" like i saw their comments back n forth they're like "OMG !!" :/

The idea behind doxxing is that you publish information that is not already in the public domain.

Publishing their names, which are already plastered all over the internet, is not doxxing!

Yes it is doxxing cause marquis n serge made sure to keep their identities well hidden ,but NYT admitted that they were able get their real names from some company hack/leak n if it werent for that then they wouldn't have known whatsoever so yea is considered doxxing plus doxxing is illegal in UK and in some states in USA too

 

[waitingforrest]

I honestly do not recomend looking at any of the "pro-lifers" comments about this forum. Even in a good mental state, the stuff they say is the closest thing to ctb fuel. Of course just saying that will make people want to check it out more, but please be prepared. They don't want us to exist at all.

 

[cyanlove]

Well I want to thank the NYT authors for reminding me about this website. I used to just lurk but their inflammatory words made me want to come back and actually get an account. How many people do you think joined because of their article?

 

[Koppite]

Firstly I'm not interested in trying to doxx anyone, nor do I know how to do it, even if I wished. Which I don't. I merely want to put the argument that we all, as humans, own ourselves. We are not, and should not be, owned by others.
I tried to contact Meghan Twohey but her DMs and email are not open. However, her pinned tweet is about this article and she tagged another NYT writer called Gabriel, whose emails and DMs are open.
This was my message to him.

"Hi Gabriel,

I was wondering if you and/or Meghan would like to present or at least listen to the other side of the argument regarding your piece on suicide.
My view, as a member of that site for many years, is that agency over one's own body and mind is the foundational human right, upon which all others are contingent.
If one removes agency and ownership of the only things that are truly your own (ie everything contained within your own body) then how can any other 'right' make sense? We have a word for people who strip others of this agency - we call them slavers, and we view them, rightly, with horror.
I would be happy to expand on and explain the argument that agency over one's life and death is the foundational human right if you would be so kind as to give me the opportunity.
With the greatest respect, the article did not concern itself with the reasons *why* people might believe they have a right to end their lives at a time and in a manner of their choosing - and I believe that a journalist with a developed moral compass (and I'm certain you both would see yourselves as such) would, on reflection, feel some duty to at least examine the thinking and motivation which informs the belief that humans have a right to a peaceful death.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best,

"

They won't care.


Investigate how? Pretty sure their names are already attached to the article, as well...

Yes that last bit was just me being upset. I don't want that and I couldn't do it even if I wanted to.
All I want is the opportunity to make the argument that we own our own lives and bodies. Hopefully they have the journalistic integrity to revisit the piece with a view to add the reason why we (or at least I) believe humans have the right to a peaceful death at a time and in a manner of our own choosing.

 

[Simba]

Firstly I'm not interested in trying to doxx anyone, nor do I know how to do it, even if I wished. Which I don't. I merely want to put the argument that we all, as humans, own ourselves. We are not, and should not be, owned by others.
I tried to contact Meghan Twohey but her DMs and email are not open. However, her pinned tweet is about this article and she tagged another NYT writer called Gabriel, whose emails and DMs are open.
This was my message to him.

"Hi Gabriel,

I was wondering if you and/or Meghan would like to present or at least listen to the other side of the argument regarding your piece on suicide.
My view, as a member of that site for many years, is that agency over one's own body and mind is the foundational human right, upon which all others are contingent.
If one removes agency and ownership of the only things that are truly your own (ie everything contained within your own body) then how can any other 'right' make sense? We have a word for people who strip others of this agency - we call them slavers, and we view them, rightly, with horror.
I would be happy to expand on and explain the argument that agency over one's life and death is the foundational human right if you would be so kind as to give me the opportunity.
With the greatest respect, the article did not concern itself with the reasons *why* people might believe they have a right to end their lives at a time and in a manner of their choosing - and I believe that a journalist with a developed moral compass (and I'm certain you both would see yourselves as such) would, on reflection, feel some duty to at least examine the thinking and motivation which informs the belief that humans have a right to a peaceful death.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best,

"

Yes that last bit was just me being upset. I don't want that and I couldn't do it even if I wanted to.
All I want is the opportunity to make the argument that we own our own lives and bodies. Hopefully they have the journalistic integrity to revisit the piece with a view to add the reason why we (or at least I) believe humans have the right to a peaceful death at a time and in a manner of our own choosing.

Thats nice of you but it wont matter to them. I had tagged them too and got no response in return so dont expect much let alone from journalists like them

 

[Koppite]

You were all correct. I got 0 response from the journalist. Clearly has no commitment to integrity or even reporting a story - just in doing a malicious and cynical hatchet job on a complex subject and ruining people's lives for clicks.

 

[BrokenBliss]

The NYT article was very one-sided, which means they were operating under the assumption of a given moral argument that has no valid opposition. They didn't give a voice to the other "side" because they don't think there is one, much like they wouldn't believe in any justification for the acts of a criminal. It lacks journalistic integrity for that reason.

I found their article while searching for a website that provided what SS does, without even knowing it existed, but assumed such a thing was out there somewhere. So I must thank the NYT for leading me to this place of community, support and comfort, as well as introducing me to SN, which will likely be the most fitting option for ctb, if I do end up there.

 

[noname223]

I would advice against trying to contact them or smearing them on social media. I often argument against them here in this forum. I believe we have the better arguments than them. But I would not go personally against them. This would make the situation only worse. I believe this would backfire a lot to this forum.

 

[GoldLeafIndigo]

The NYT is a filthy rag, but I have to admit that its poisonous tentacles reach out far beyond the USA.

Although I discovered this forum from the NYT hit piece (when I was searching online for a CTB method), today I came to know that the NYT article was re-published across the world in many newspapers & websites, including a prominent newspaper in my country.

Ironically, I think this widespread re-publication of the NYT's disgraceful article on SS is leading more and more folks from across the world to join this forum.

Marquis and Serge are becoming world famous, if they weren't already.

I found this forum through the article.