Not going to go very in depth with this but the big news right now is that Gawker helped a gay escort blackmail former Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner's brother, David. They alleged that David had tried to pay the gay pornstar for sex but he backed out when it became clear that the man wanted help with a HUD complaint alleging housing discrimination. David wouldn't pay so the escort went to Gawker who ended up publishing everything. (I won't link to the article because I don't want Gawker to get any money from anyone who reads this blog, but here is an archive link.)
Almost everyone agrees that this was a terrible thing to do. First of all, this isn't newsworthy at all. David Geithner is a private citizen and it shouldn't matter to anyone if he is gay or not. And there is quite a bit of doubt that he even is gay, since Gawker isn't really known for high journalistic standards. But a private citizen having a gay affair, even if it did happen, is not something the news media should concern themselves with. And outing a gay man for no good reason is not a good thing, nobody benefits. If this was a politician and not some guy that was related to a politician, then this might be newsworthy. But David Geithner is not a politician. He is an executive at Conde Nast, which is a competitor of Gawker's so I am not surprised this was published.
Second, this story might not even be true. All they have for evidence is a bunch of easily altered texts and a bunch of meaningless photos. And I have been hearing some chatter on Twitter, Reddit (ugh) and other places that the source of the story might have been a very determined troll. None of those sources are reliable at this point, so take it with a huge grain of salt, but it still casts doubt on this story. If it is a lie they will have one hell of a libel case on their hands.
So why should I even care about what Gakwer does? After all this blog is mostly about warfare and politics, not the ravings of Gawker. Well, I think holding the media accountable is important, especially when they do stuff like this. We wouldn't tolerate a private citizen trying to blackmail anyone, why would we tolerate it from our news media? Though Gawker is tabloid tier at best (I would never use them as a source for this blog), they are still relatively popular and thousands of people read their sites. If Gawker suffers for this debacle and go out of business then perhaps other news outlets will think twice before they decide to publicly shame someone for no reason whatsoever. I know it has become a cliche but ethics in journalism is important. You don't attack a random person like this for no good reason.
They are also complete hypocrites as well. Back when Gamergate happened they were all about how it was wrong to publish details about the sex scandal that kicked the whole thing off, but they have no problem with this scandal. And when the Jennifer Lawrence photos leaked they said everyone that looked at them were basically sex offenders, but they proudly hosted Hulk Hogan's sex tape. They claim that they are a progressive website, but they just outed a presumably gay man and helped to blackmail him. Or they libeled a straight man.
Either way Gawker deserves to burn and I really hope that anyone reading this will avoid visiting Gawker in the future. I also like how so many people on Twitter are denouncing this story for what it is. It's not often I find myself agreeing with someone like Lena Dunham, but in this case she is right. Gawker really isn't something people should be reading if this is the quality of writing they are going to put out.
I also have to say that if the story is true, it made Ted Cruz, of all people, look like a decent guy. The alleged blackmailer had asked Cruz for help with his discrimination claim and it sounds like Cruz really went to bat for him. From what it sounds like Cruz, or more likely his staffers, knew the man was gay and was being discriminated against because of his sexuality. If there is a bright spot in any of this it is the fact that Cruz did his job whatever his reservations are about homosexuality.
No comments:
Post a Comment