Flutterby™! : Gawker on sluts and Christine O'Donnell

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Gawker on sluts and Christine O'Donnell

2010-11-02 16:15:14.35868+00 by Dan Lyke 0 comments

Gawker: Why We Published the Christine O'Donnell Story:

Much of the criticism leveled against us is based on the premise that we think hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women whenever one wants is "slutty," and that therefore our publication of Anonymous' story was intended to diminish O'Donnell on those terms. Any reader of this site ought to rather quickly gather that we are in fact avid supporters of hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women that one has just met.

Our problem with O'Donnell—and the reason that the information we published about her is relevant—is that she has repeatedly described herself and her beliefs in terms that suggest that there is something wrong with hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with a man or woman whom one has just met. So that fact that she behaves that way, while publicly condemning similar behavior, in the context of an attempt to win a seat in the United States Senate, is a story we thought people might like to know about. We also thought it would get us lots of clicks and money and attention. But we thought it would get us clicks and money and attention because it was exposing her lies.

Quoted a little more there than I usually do, and it's worth reading the whole thing, but I'm glad to see at least one press outlet explaining the subtleties of their editorial process. Even if it's a press outlet I usually scoff at.

[ related topics: Politics Sexual Culture Journalism and Media ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):