Disclaimer

By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Hey Gawker - your slip is showing.

Yesterday I posted a brief note on Adrian Chen's short memory, a reminder that though today he's all about attacking people he does not like at the expense of innocent and helpless parties associated with them, in the past he has condemned that very behavior.

Since then, my view of the situation has been expanded, and I stand corrected.

Adrian Chen is not the problem. His writing is only a symptom of the site's larger issue of hypocrisy and journalistic feculence.

I realize now that Chen's outrage is entirely manufactured, and Jezebel's might be as well. Gawker's theme is Yellow Journalism, internet style; sensationalizing the mundane, demonizing the merely annoying, exploiting and capitalizing on anything that will draw page views.

Why else would the same organization whose various writers so vehemently decry the violation of privacy-in-public publish a sex tape made without the knowledge or consent of the participants? What great logic!

I thought, well, maybe the difference is newsworthiness.

Wrong.

Guess what website has an article full of the very type of photos which were Chen's excuse for doxing violentacrez? Surely it couldn't be...









Gawker Writer Maureen O'Connor has written a post chronicling both the deliberate and accidental nudity of one of America's most famously dysfunctional young women. Which is great... er, wrong. Because exploiting the bodies of young women for the viewing interest of one's subscribers is totally wrong, isn't it?




No comments:








google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html