The Matthew Keys follies continue -- now he's managed to get the Bloomberg News social media editor Jared Keller fired out of spite.
Jared was his colleague with whom he DM'd on Twitter, but Jared then sent an anonymous (later easily discovered) comment about Keys' firing to the media.
Then they had a fight. (BTW, Keller's repeated reference to the line in the Godfather, "This is the business we have chosen," is awfully creepy.) I'm curious what group they were in. Is this Journo-List? Is this Paul Carr's NSF? What is it exactly? Anyone?
Keys then waited for weeks -- for reasons that aren't clear -- stewing in his spite and then exposed Cullen as the culprit for the leaked remark AND exposed his own disgruntled comments about his employer.
Needless to say, Bloomberg let him go the next day -- or he quit before he was fired?
Reuters should have done the same thing when they first discovered that Keys had decided to be defiant about his indictment, and not acknowledge the journalistic ethics involved.
Keys was said to be fired for violating Reuters ethics requirements -- but you have to wonder why he wasn't fired then on day one after his indictment not because he's "innocent until proven guilty" and his employer could in theory stand behind him, but because he simply failed to acknowledge that *yes*, there were ethical considerations involved in disguising his identity, hanging out in the IRC channel with the Anonymous hackers as they plotted hacks, and then not telling the authorities about this -- and even appearing to join in one "prank" against his own former employer -- and gloat about it.
Keys has never said "those acts were wrong" but instead has said "I didn't do it" -- and we're all waiting to see what rabbit he's going to pull out of which hat to make this lame claim -- likely it will be along the lines of "I wuz hacked" or perhaps even "I was depressed and taking medications". The font of hacker excuses is bottomless.
What I marvel at is that the Columbia Journalism Review would celebrate Keys and make an "exit interview" as if he has done some sort of daring exploit.
Do they teach ethics at Columbia School of Journalism any more?!
My comment on their website:
Does the Columbia School of Journalism still teach journalism ethics? The Trust Principles are basic ethics like not misrepresenting yourself to get a story, and that's what Keys acknowledges he did in the IRC channel with Anonymous. Although he learned of crimes being planned and executed and is even shown to participate in hacks of media outlets, he didn't report the crimes to authorities and seemed to make himself part of the story. He both admits he was the person in the account leading to him and then implies his legal defense will somehow prove it wasn't really him, that he was "hacked".
Then you have the obvious discrepancies in Keys' account of the Boston police scanner story; elsewhere, he says he would have complied and stop tweeting had he known authorities had made this request, but got the notice hours after it was made -- but then complied with it. Here, he implies you don't have to comply if you're a fabulous social media editor.
Then, if you criticize Matthew Keys legitimately for his questionable lack of morals, his defiant bragging of breaching journalistic ethics, white-washing of Anonymous, he heckles you, as he has been doing to me:
Keys wasn't fired for tweeting a police scanner report that multiple other journalists and bloggers tweeted, myself included, but because he had already built up a record of nasty defiance of management and of rules by then.
One shouldn't require "training" in basic principles that should be part of your character before you are hired. When we see the gushing treatment Keys gets in this piece, we can see where the problems are rooted -- in journalism schools that in the rush to be part of the fad of social media seem to have discarded their long-established foundations for credibility.
I want to note again that I tweeted the exact same Boston police scanner information that Matthew did. THAT I don't see anything wrong with -- and not merely because I did it -- if these scanners are open to the public (and I'm not sure they should be, or least, not for every operation), then they have to be reported.
If they locked down the city of Boston while they were trying to capture this suspect in the bombings, why didn't they also cite public safety and block their scanners? Isn't that possible? Because it does affect their ability to capture someone if he has helpers listening to the scanner (it's not about him listening himself).
There's also the issue of Matthews changing his story -- which is definitely the case, as first he said on his open Facebook he didn't see the warning the BPD made to the public to stop tweeting the scanner, and claimed he would have heeded it if he had seen it in time -- and *did* hours later:
C) When people became upset, I said on Twitter I hadn't seen the CBS News report that everyone was sourcing in which the Boston Police supposedly asked people not to publish scanner traffic. With a focus on four different video streams, several Twitter lists and, yes, dispatch audio, it slipped by me. But once I became aware of it, I stopped. In fact -- having been awake well over 24 hours, with 10 of them covering the overnight event -- I closed the computer and went to bed.
But now for the CJR interview, he's doubling down and saying that it's okay to tweet it anyway:
As far as I’m aware, there was no request by law enforcement on social media and no request by law enforcement by way of a press release or media statement asking for people on Twitter to not tweet emergency scanner traffic.
He's since deleted his tweets from the scanner.
When you see how Matthew contorts himself and gives two difference versions of his behaviour and beliefs about what is right on the Boston police scanner incident, you can see how untrustworthy he is on the Anonymous issue (where his story has also...morphed).