RT @delrayser: How about this: I’ll pay “in the low four figures” to never hear from Christine O’Donnell or Gawker again.
RT @delrayser: How about this: I’ll pay “in the low four figures” to never hear from Christine O’Donnell or Gawker again.
No that I approve, but to me, this seems par for the course for media treatment of politicians and anyone else who attracts 15 minutes of fame. I especially don’t understand the NOW outrage. I wonder if O’Donnell actually had a reasonable chance of winning, if NOW would’ve reacted the same way….
This isn’t the first time NOW has expressed such dissaproval after a conservative female was treated poorly. I don’t agree with all their positions, but they do seem consistent in their reaction to similar events like this one.
I also don’t qualify Gawker as “the media” any more than I consider TMZ, Weekly World News or Access Hollywood to be the media, although that may just be me.
Actually I consider Gawker to be pretty much bottom of the barrel.
This one is better (from the same source)
“pourmecoffee Bracing now for Harry Reid sex stories, though they probably end up with frustrating lack of cloture. “
Interesting perspective:
http://theconjecturer.tumblr.com/post/1426352060/dear-everyone-freaking-out-over-gawker
Seems like the conjecturer is comparing, apples to oranges. This isn’t a news story about O’Donnel having an affair or simply having done something, its anonymous reporting in graphic detail about something which for all we know never happened. The stories about Craig were no where NEAR what this story is. Gawker is scum, plain and simple.
LOL Alasdair!
Uh, I think you need to reread what he wrote.
I read what he wrote. Larry Craig did something for which he was caught and attempted to later deny. It also counters his actual position on many issues. Pointing to one piece that a blogger wrote about it as a humorous event later is not proof that everyone treated it that way either.
The O’Donnell piece? Based on claims from an anonymous source. She hasn’t been caught doing anything yet, and oh yeah, if its true of course comedians will make jokes about it. It won’t be any different. People aren’t objecting to the portrayal of an event they know occured in a humorous light, they are objecting to an anonymous, graphic, smear piece.
Uh, yeah, you didn’t read it. Or at least you didn’t realize the link wasn’t about a bathroom stall, it was about a one night stand with a dude in DC, complete with discussion of shit covered condoms.
The only real difference is that this guy isn’t an anonymous source. I don’t know that it makes it much more believable, however.
The point remains, we all embraced hearing about the fucked up things Craig did. Personally, other than realizing that he was a hypocrite, I thought the coverage of Craig was disgusting too.