October 30, 2010

Why I won't read "Why We Published the Christine O'Donnell Story."

This link goes to the Memeorandum collection of links to the above-titled item in Gawker. They got nothing but outrage for the story they published, which I glanced at but refused to read and would not link to. My refusal to read it was reflexive, the way I'd immediately close the bathroom door if I opened it and found someone in there. Gawker got a lot of traffic for its paid-for, anonymous story about not having sex with Christine O'Donnell, and they're out to get more traffic explaining why they published it. Gawker has long been traffic-grabbing, which isn't inherently wrong, but it exposes you to temptations, and you have to decide where you want to draw your lines. Gawker has decided, and I'd say, the best response is to deny them the traffic they live for. Don't go there. It may not discipline them back into decency. They'll probably get more traffic as they become more and more notorious for outrageous invasions of privacy. But you don't have to add to that traffic. Don't be a chump and go look just because everyone else seems to be looking.

55 comments:

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

That's exactly what I say when Matt Drudge publishes pages with Janet Napolitano looking up at a full body scan of a woman going through security. But by that time the damage is already done.

I bet Althouse prefers her sexed-up sensationalism right up front and center, before you get the chance to decide whether details are worth reading about or not. Put the titillation in the title and cover picture, and that way you are absolved of the decision of whether or not to be decent!

What a wonderful loop-hole, eh?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Context

garage mahal said...

I heard there was a terrorist bomb thing or something yesterday. Was looking here and at Instapundit for some info, and couldn't find anything. Weird.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

But I forgot... Drudge is a cutting-edge artiste! Decency and circumspection is not an issue when you are merely using the news of the day as a vehicle to advance your role as an avant-garde provocateur!

That is all part of the same loop-hole, right?

Trooper York said...

I saw the Millionaire Matchmaker fot the first time last night. But that was only because she was fixing up the two Manzo kids from "The Real Housewives of New Jersey."

I have to say I don't care for this Judy chick who runs it. What a bitch.

sydney said...

Ha! Blogging as performance art. Post about not linking to a link-grabbing link while linking to it and putting the title in the main body of the post so you, too, get internet hits.

Trooper York said...

She had all these rules about how you pick out a date and what to do and how you should act.

Sort of like how you would pick out a political candidate.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Will news corrupt O'Donnell's image of her own sexual purity or will sexed-up sensationalism corrupt the news?

That is the question.

I think I know which side of that question this blog stands on.

John Burgess said...

I succumbed to the temptation to see how Gawker would try to excuse itself. Lamely, at best. More surprising were the comments, most of which seemed to be of the 'go get 'em, O'Donnell is a douche' sort.

Nothing substantive, just more ad hominem smearing and justification for very creepy voyeurism.

Trooper York said...

You see everything you need to know about life you can learn from reality TV.

Trooper York said...

Maybe Christine O'Donnell could go on the Millionaire Matchmaker.

I bet she would like to be set up with a Todd Palin.

But she might end up with an Eliot Sptizer.

It's tough out there in the dating world. Just sayn'

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

It's all about being cutting edge, visual sensationalism, and homophobic innuendo, John. That's how Drudge gets around the loop-hole. That's what wins him praise here.

Lawyers love loop-holes.

Chase said...

Too late. And I'm so sorry.I can't unsee it.


Ritmo, why are you so obsessed with the sex lives of public people? Why does it matter so much? Do you think everyone needs your comments on someone's sexual practices in order to make correct decisions?

GMay said...

Ritty whined: "Put the titillation in the title and cover picture, and that way you are absolved of the decision of whether or not to be decent!

...

Decency and circumspection is not an issue when you are merely using the news of the day as a vehicle to advance your role as an avant-garde provocateur!
"

This coming from the guy who has John Bender as an avatar and defends congressional Democrats' calling on comedians in-character as witnesses (we won't mention electing them). What was it you said to me about making the gravitas argument WRT congressional testimony?

Though I suppose putting such stock in comedians is circumspect in a way. Can't say it's as decent as when you use homosexuality as an allegation though.

You're a real paragon of civility Ritty.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GMay said...

Ritty with the assist: "It's all about being cutting edge, visual sensationalism, and homophobic innuendo..."

Oops, sorry I missed this little gem from Ritmo "I bet you're gay" Brasilero

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Ritmo, why are you so obsessed with the sex lives of public people? Why does it matter so much? Do you think everyone needs your comments on someone's sexual practices in order to make correct decisions?

I'm not defending or criticizing Gawker or Drudge. But I think it's fair to point out that only a hypocrite would take issue with one and not the other.

I think it's ridiculous the amount of concern people have over other people's sex lives, including public figures - unless there was some sort of ethical problem involved. But that goes to show the immaturity of the American people when it comes to sex. Once we grow up and accept that sex is nothing more than another part of life, much will improve. We will lose the need to see something more in it than there really is.

Almost Ali said...

I heard there was a terrorist bomb thing or something yesterday.

No, Yemen had a one-day sale on toner.

Trooper York said...

I don't know. I don't think I would want any of the gals I dated back in the day going on some website to talk about it if I got famous. That would not be good. How about you?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

You're a real paragon of civility Ritty.

Keep it up, G. Or raise your game. Either way this thread was sunk before it sailed. Best to work on improving the quality of the commentary at this point. It's the thread's only hope.

HDHouse said...

is this Gawker or Drudge you talking about?

Big Mike said...

Well put, Professor.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

What was it you said to me about making the gravitas argument WRT congressional testimony?

Though I suppose putting such stock in comedians is circumspect in a way.


Stewart and Colbert are popular and have respect beyond that achieved by Limbaugh or whomever. And satire is a time-honored part of American politics. Why you can't accept that the market for these guys would diminish if the quality of our politics improved is anyone's guess. And why you are blaming me for that incredibly innocent insight is, also, anyone's guess.

edutcher said...

They've already shot themselves by achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted. Different polls have still widely differing results, but, slice it any way you want, O'D has hacked into Coons' lead badly. Maybe down by 10, by 5, maybe less.

The Law of Unintended Consequences = Payback.

garage mahal said...

I heard there was a terrorist bomb thing or something yesterday. Was looking here and at Instapundit for some info, and couldn't find anything. Weird.

None here, either. Blogs are blogs, not news sites, besides Insta was a tad sparse yesterday.

He must have been out having a life.

GMay said...

Ritty with the assist: "It's all about being cutting edge, visual sensationalism, and homophobic innuendo..."

Oops, sorry I missed this little gem from Ritmo "I bet you're gay" Brasilero


Don't you mean Ritmo "You're all racist Vanilla Ices" Braziliero?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Vanilla Ice wasn't racist, Edutcher.

Back to training camp for you! Your game has to be raised!

roesch-voltaire said...

Ritmo, I agree it is a cheap shot of the sort Drudge is known for and which is why I do not brother with either one.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Thanks R-V for being honest and noting the hypocrisy. I also don't read either one.

Penny said...

Once the National Organization of Women, NOW, spoke out in defense of Christine O'Donnell, Gawker had to know they hit a home run in the currently popular game of Neanderthal baseball.

The game isn't over yet, Althouse, so it seems a bit unfair to ask us to leave the stadium of the team that finally moved NOW to support a Tea Party Republican woman. This is HISTORICAL, for cripes sake.

GMay said...

Now if you could only note your own hypocrisy Ritmo, the one true hope for this thread would be a reality - you leaving.

But God help us all if we don't have the Arbiter of All That Is Worthy to BLog About - Ritmo. We'd be lost without your hypocritical guiding hand.

MrBuddwing said...

That's exactly what I say when Matt Drudge publishes pages with Janet Napolitano looking up at a full body scan of a woman going through security.

Thanks R-V for being honest and noting the hypocrisy. I also don't read either one.

You don't read Drudge, but you look at the pictures?

Word verification: quire.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Lame. Point not taken, GMay.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

You don't read Drudge, but you look at the pictures?

Thanks to Althouse and other third parties, they were unavoidable.

Of course, some people had the sort of criticism for them that they'd reserve for Gawker doing, well, basically the same thing. And some obviously didn't. Some just couldn't, you see.

Stogie said...

Ritmo, let me spell it out for you. Drudge generally prints accurate stories about you libbies that are not flattering, but are true. You Dems, like Gawker, publish libelous lies or extreme exaggerations about conservatives. You practice the politics of personal destruction, merely to grab power. There are numerous stories in the news today showing studies on the use of negative political ads. Both are using negative ads; but the Republicans are criticizing policy whereas the Democrats are launching personal attacks (like the O'Donnell sex lie).

So no, Drudge and Gawker are not comparable and there is no moral equivalence. But nice try.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Shorter Stogie:

"Lies are more virtuous when placed in the title and photos than in the story itself."

Thanks for clearing that up. And thanks for letting me know that Republicans no longer believe that character (what is at stake with personal attacks) matters. It helps to know that.

SteveR said...

Ritmo, just because you've read a lot of great books, and otherwise fancy yourself as smart and current, you never fail to come across as an insufferable asshole. You compare Gawker to Drudge? That's deep man. One website does this one unfair and ridiculous thing so you feel the need, not to defend Gawker, but say its not any worse than Drudge. Is that all you got?

GMay said...

Ritty said: "Lame. Point not taken, GMay."

Be more accurate Ritty - point not understood. Even after I spelled it out for you upthread.

Now, read it a few more times, post about 6 more times at an average of 500 words a post, say very little despite your efforts, then get all pissy when someone points that fact out.

You can do it Ritty.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I guess after personal attacks like these the Republicans didn't think they could get any more mileage out of the approach?

The one of Obama as Hitler was interesting to see... right after the one of him as Hitler.

garage mahal said...

Will news corrupt O'Donnell's image of her own sexual purity or will sexed-up sensationalism corrupt the news?

I think this is by design. Send out the cute bimbos who talk about not having sex, thereby forcing talk about sex, to keep the audience tuned in. You don't want anyone to figure out things like credit default swaps, or synthetic collateralized debt obligations, so the bimbos talk about not ever ever trusting any smart people. Only "commonsense" concepts like, flag, liberty, or small government, that don't need any further exploration are promoted. News corrupted!

MPH said...

Lust in her heart, according to her, is cheating. She made it an issue...we didn't. Her non-profit, the "Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth" was formed to promote these "values." So as scummy as that Gawker article is, she is fair game because of her stated positions. She couldn't stick to the economy and let people be people...so she's invited this upon herself, as awful as it is.

Someone who traffics in Christian morality for a living, and especially one who seeks to form our laws and defend the constitution, puts themselves in a position to be ridiculed when they are shown to be hypocrites.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Is that all you got?

Yep. And it's all that matters.

I'm sure if I were not such an asshole I would pump Drudge up with all sorts of pretty talk that makes him come across as less insufferable than Gawker. But, you see, I've read too many books and stay too current to come up with some kind of God awful bullshit as that. Plus, I'm an asshole. That helps, too. Just like Drudge is.

So hopefully you can relate. If not, I'll just post some pictures of Janet Napolitano ogling a random woman's naked body scan and say it was my own work. And what cutting-edge work it was! So creative! So illuminating!

God. What insufferable reasoning you provided.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Geez, garage. If you continue pointing out what the Republicans are getting wrong then you might be an "asshole" too!

To avoid being an asshole, make sure that you are either infinitely deferent to the Rs, only have nice things to say about them, or are so subtle a milquetoast in your critique as to not matter.

Those are the rules.

AJ Lynch said...

If the election question to the voters was "Who would you rather sleep with? O'Donnell or Chris Coons?", O'Donnell would win big.

SteveR said...

Ritmo, you take yourself way too seriously. No one gives a rat's ass what you think but we enjoy getting these predictable reactions from you. You're not as smart as you think, not nearly. And by the way, no one cares what you think. No one.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Glad to know that hive-mind of yours speaks for one and all, SteveR. The borg has done a nice job assimilating you. And I'm glad to know my resistance to group-think provides you with a chuckle. Someday you'll have a deeper appreciation for it.

edutcher said...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Vanilla Ice wasn't racist, Edutcher.

Back to training camp for you! Your game has to be raised!


Of course not

But that is the intent of Ritmo's message. He's not even ready for triple A ball.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

But am I ready to be assimilated into The Borg, Edutcher? That's the important question here, you see.

Resistance is futile.

Nichevo said...

speaking of not as smart as he thinks...

it's not "deferent" it's "deferential"

more to the point: Ritmo, are you a Crazy Eddie fan? It's like "we will not be undersold" but with ethics, morals, taste, whatever. Wherever one looks to find you, it will never be on the high road.

Amusingly you will always, ALWAYS claim it, but that's just because you think it's where one of your wonderful attributes should be - i.e., wherever you are is the side of right. Lovely for navigation as long as you never intend to get anywhere.

As always the chink in your character armor is this: you bask in unfalsifiability. What's regrettable is not even so much your inflated self-esteem, as the corollary underestimation of everyone else.

I do think you are better on neutral topics. You are only mad north-north-west, it seems. Honestly this place is bad for you...better off at Troop's.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

"Deferent" is correct, if uncommon usage.

Why not just admit that I had a point re: Althouse's partisan distaste for Gawker doing what Drudge regularly does - even if not always in a sexual way?

I never said I was always right. Don't you think that greater ease with one's position, less willingness to question, let alone critique... anything(!) is more likely to indicate self-righteous behavior, smugness, sanctimony, etc.?

I realize the conservative narrative of the day is how anti-elite they think they are. I just didn't realize that comfort with the status quo is populist, civilized, morally defensible and well-mannered by definition. And how easily you lump all those different things together - along with the complete non-sequitur, "taste".

Your strange opinions never cease to intrigue me, Nichevo...

Donald Douglas said...

I read "Why we published..."

It's a REAL news story, dontcha know. #FAIL

Cedarford said...

Way too much time and attention has been spent on that unqualified "perky" candidate.

She loses, and the Delaware Tea Party gets remembered as the pack of dolts that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. But as "Perky Christine" moves on to Palin wannabe media rewards - at least the Delaware dolts can say they "sent a message" by sending a Democrat who will vote with Obama 100% of the time over a moderate Republican that will vote with Obama 12% of the time.

Ohhhh, Christine! So adorable! So cute! So unfit for office!

William said...

I think the Charley Sheehan and Tiger Woods stories are endlessly fascinating. Sex with beautiful women in luxury hotels is hot. But all the sexual scandals involving politicians are banal and demoralizing. Clarence Thomas, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards: their tales are as unprurient as dead kittens. They make human sexuality appear foolish and sad.... There's a certain amount of frisson with a Christine O'Donnell story because she's a good looking woman, but her story, even if true, just made her look confused rather than seductive or wicked. The love lives of politicians are not the stuff or Harlequin romances and still less of Olympia Press excesses....In the future, we should all pay more attention to the scandals involving movie stars and athletes. They have terrific bodies and interesting sex lives. We should skip the scandals involving politicans. Their stories are neither cautionary not exemplary; they simply catalogue how futile and silly we look in our pursuit of sex or love.

jr565 said...

MPH wrote:
Lust in her heart, according to her, is cheating. She made it an issue...we didn't. Her non-profit, the "Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth" was formed to promote these "values." So as scummy as that Gawker article is, she is fair game because of her stated positions. She couldn't stick to the economy and let people be people...so she's invited this upon herself, as awful as it is.

as scummy and as awful as it is. Yet as scummy and awful as it is you have to be the one to scold her about her hypocricy even though she didn't actually do anything, and you are now looking into her heart to glean her intention and motivation. Which sounds like it doesn't take a lot for you to go after people for their hypocricy.
There's something, dare I say hypocritical, to one one hand call what the gawker did scummy but then rationalize it. Yes, it's scummy but it had to be done and she brought it upon herself for being such a goody goody. That's scummy.

Synova said...

"Lust in her heart, according to her, is cheating. She made it an issue..."

When.

I don't understand why people lie like this. LOTS of Christians think that lust in your heart is cheating... it's not particularly avoidable, it's a fact of our sinful natures, which is also not avoidable. In any case, not a big deal.

So, the claim that SHE made this an issue, requires us to ask WHEN.

When she was part of a group or formed a group or whatever to promote and encourage morality... which is a pretty normal thing for a person to do who wants to encourage people to follow Christ and live a Christian life... or NOW when she's running for office, making statements about what her policy would be when she's acting in a different capacity all together.

The truth is that O'Donnell did not make sexual purity an issue any more than she made witch craft an issue.

Saying, "Oh, noes! It wasn't us making this an issue instead of important policy information, it was her!" is a lie. Her opponents keep hauling this stuff out of her past as if it matters and then saying "But she asked for it!"

And seriously Ritmo... a picture of Napolitano looking at a full body scan to illustrate the governmental invasion of privacy and the fact that full body scans really are that explicit, is not equivalent to the fact that I can not now unknow the fact that O'Donnell doesn't wax.

Synova said...

I understand that Ritmo is off on some outrage that Drudge was supposedly saying "Neener, neener, look at the lesbian!"

Because like so very many "conservative" political concerns there is no other possibility than racism or homophobia. Because in liberal land there is NO rational reason to find government invasion of privacy concerning, not really. That our government and others want us to walk through a machine that strips us naked isn't something a reasonable person would object to in liberal land so a political juxtaposition of a representative of the law enforcement arms of federal government invading privacy can ONLY be a lie... what it was really about was calling Napolitano a lesbian. And besides, there isn't a double standard *at all* that would explain why male full frontal nudity wasn't published instead, not at all.

And that is just the same, that subliminal hint about Napolitano's sexuality, as a detailed tell all of making out.

Not only was the level of violation of privacy not in the same ball park between this disgusting invasion of O'Donnell's privacy and hinting that Napolitano might like girls, it's not even the same violation of privacy as revealing John Edwards' affair and baby-mama. Do we know if John Edwards trims his pubes? There was some speculation that that one guy who got caught for prostitution might like anal, and that's a whole lot closer, but still not the same thing as a tell-all of what someone did while on a date.

First comment out of the gate on this one is "Your side does it too!"

And you know what? I don't think that's true.

kwood said...

I read the article and saw the pictures, and my estimation of O'Donnel (among other things) has risen considerably. A fun-loving sweetie who sticks to her ideals is what I see here and that appeals to me a great deal.

If she were married at the time this might be scandal, but she wasn't so it's not. It reflects very poorly in myriad ways upon the boy who went into sordid detail on a private affair, and moreso still on those who pounced on this as some sort of indication of some sort of dreadful hypocrisy on the part of O'Donnel.

At worst, she may be guilty of holding herself to higher intellectual/spiritual standards than anyone could reasonably expect to live up to. Jeez, sound like anyone we know?

I can live with this 'hypocrisy' of hers if she can live up to her promises to cut pork and entitlements.

The pictures are beautiful, btw. She was clearly more fun than the Anonymous commenter could handle!