August 12, 2016

The Daily Beast took down its article on the sexual activity of gay male athletes at the Olympics.

But why, exactly? One answer is that the identities of the (unnamed) gay men could be figured out and some of them are from countries that — as the NYT puts it — are not "gay-friendly." But another reason is that the article got lambasted for the way the reporter — Nico Hines, a non-gay man — used Grindr to find gay men. Grindr is an app that lets gay men find other gay men (for sexual purposes), so Hines was using it for other than its ostensible purpose.

Is it a violation of journalistic ethics to pose as something you are not in order to gain newsworthy information? (I'm not assuming what Hines found — gay athletes having sex — is newsworthy, just trying to isolate an ethical point.) The NYT doesn't fill me in on that gap in my knowledge. It does that thing of calling on an expert to give a quote. They got Robert Drechsel, a just-retired professor here at my university, the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He was the James E. Burgess Chair in Journalism Ethics and director of the Center for Journalism Ethics, so he must know the answer to my question, but his quote is only that the article is "thoughtless, insensitive and unethical."

Exactly what aspect of what Hines did is "unethical"? I want to hear the general proposition so I can think about it apart from the other problems (endangering the subjects, the frivolity of the material, the offending of sensibilities, the interest in maintaining the functionality of Grindr).

Dreschel is also quoted as saying: “It’s hard to find the words to describe. Why in the world — why in the world of journalism — would anyone do this?”

But, in fact, it's easy to understand why a journalist would do that — to get a story that people would want to read. Why pretend not to understand that? Can I just get a clearly stated ethical principle that will apply when the target group for trickery doesn't inspire our empathy?

ADDED: Here's a 2010 piece in Columbia Journalism Review, "The Ethics of Undercover Journalism/Why journalists get squeamish over James O'Keefe's tactics":
The field’s squeamishness with “lying to get the truth,” as the headline of a 2007 American Journalism Review article put it, is well-documented. In the 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times set up an elaborate sting operation at the Mirage Tavern to document routine corruption in city agencies; the sting worked, but the paper’s Pulitzer hopes were dashed, reportedly because Ben Bradlee and Eugene Patterson disapproved of its methods. PrimeTime Live’s decision to have producers falsify resumes and smuggle hidden cameras into a Food Lion grocery store sparked contentious litigation (an initial $5.5 million jury verdict against ABC was reduced on appeal to $2) and drew two articles in CJR (not online).

Most recently, Ken Silverstein, the acclaimed Washington editor of Harper’s, posed as a foreign businessman to expose lobbyists’ willingness to represent unsavory clients. Silverstein came back with a gripping story and had plenty of defenders, but institutions like the Center for Public Integrity sided with The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz in criticizing his methods....

There are practical reasons for that wariness. As other observers have noted, while the use of deception in reporting can yield sensational results, it also lends the subject a weapon to wield against the journalist. The ready-made complaint: If the reporter has forfeited the high ground of transparency and honesty, how can his conclusions be trusted by the public?....

To mitigate this concern, undercover reporters are urged take care to situate what they’ve gleaned through deception in a structure of traditional reporting—to show that, unlike, say, Punk’d or Candid Camera or even “To Catch a Predator,” the gimmick is not all there is. Wherever one comes down on Silverstein’s work, one of the more effective criticisms of it was that his original story never gave the lobbying firms he targeted an opportunity to comment....

That’s not the only guideline for going undercover. While there are, appropriately, no hard-and-fast rules or central authorities for journalism, a checklist drawn up by Poynter’s Bob Steele in 1995 is often cited for guidance on this issue. A few points on the list are probably too vague to be of much use, but the first two are valuable. They state that deception and hidden cameras may be appropriate:
When the information obtained is of profound importance. It must be of vital public interest, such as revealing great “system failure” at the top levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals.

When all other alternatives for obtaining the same information have been exhausted....
ALSO: Hillary did it: "How Hillary Clinton Went Undercover to Examine Race in Education."

65 comments:

TreeJoe said...

I think the ethics behind it are the risk of exposing homosexual athletes hailing from countries in which the result could be anything from loss of their position at the Olympics to death. If that risk is anything more than infintisimal, then publishing that sort of information without subject consent as a social interest story is unethical.

Bob Ellison said...

Deliberate deception for personal gain is unethical.

News pundits often say things like "but undercover deception is a fine and standard journalistic technique".

Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive article on undercover journalism.

Wilbur said...

"Is it a violation of journalistic ethics to pose as something you are not in order to gain newsworthy information?"

Journalistic ethics do not exist, except where they are cited in favor of a particular scribe in a dispute over something or other.

TreeJoe said...

To put it in another context, in medicine exposing someone to something that has any potential to harm them - without both prior consent AND discussion of those risks - is unethical.

Steve said...

Ethical standards for journalists? It's all about the clicks nothing more. Only back off a story when the heat is unbearable.

traditionalguy said...

Gay sexual athletes are just not interesting anymore. So what. Now that they are not prohibited but honored in every way, there is nothing there to draw attention to their claims to feel oppressed. That is so over now.

Sebastian said...

"Dreschel is also quoted as saying: “It’s hard to find the words to describe. Why in the world — why in the world of journalism — would anyone do this?” But, in fact, it's easy to understand why a journalist would do that — to get a story that people would want to read. Why pretend not to understand that? Can I just get a clearly stated ethical principle that will apply when the target group for trickery doesn't inspire our empathy?"

There you go again, asking for principle and consistency from people who engage in special pleading for political purposes. In prog politics, ethics and logic are situational. If they can be used to advance some favored group, use them; otherwise, not. Possible danger to gays from certain countries may motivate complaints. Another factor is the implicit expectation that a forthright report on gay sexual practices might be a bit, umm, off-putting to a non-gay audience (which helps to make it click-bait).

Laslo Spatula said...

"...some of them are from countries that — as the NYT puts it — are not "gay-friendly." "

I'm not sure what this means.

Perhaps the NYT can provide a few examples.

I'm just curious if any of these countries share any similarities.

Or beliefs.

Do these countries freely decorate cakes?

As an example.


I am Laslo.

Hagar said...

Well, if you consider TMZ to be "journalism" I guess it is ethical enough.

Kind of reminds me of the old joke about the medical corporation that hired a bunch of lawyers because there were some things their lab rats just would not do.

Chuck said...

Althouse, there is no clearly-stated principle that will apply when the offended group does not inspire the politically-correct sympathies of the mainstream media.

In fact, that is the point. The principle -- stated clearly -- is that if the offended group is favored by the mainstream media (gays, transgenders, minorities, women, but not Republican women, etc.) then any method of investigative reporting is questionable. And if the offended group members are Republicans, then any method of investigative reporting is acceptable.

There's your clearly stated principle right there.

See, e.g., Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Edward Snowden.

rhhardin said...

They offended the gay lobby, is the ethics.

They shouldn't do it, but that's not journalistic ethics, just ordinary ethics.

Don't screw somebody for your own gain; do only transactions where both sides come out ahead.

rhhardin said...

The gay lobby could use some ethics itself.

rhhardin said...

No fraud, no force.

Chuck said...

By the way; which Olympic athletes are gay males?

Lesbian athletes from the USA (producing Title IX lesbian athletes like a world-class factory) is the 'dog bites man' story of all time.

But males? I guess diving, and maybe gymnastics. What else?

gerry said...

Hey rubes - the Daily Beast thinks y'all want to read about people having sex with people of the same sex, and it wants to use your assumed vulgar curiosity as the reason to write the drivel, and NOW they're having a snit about whether the whole thing is ethical or not because it may harm the subjects of the drivel.

I wish they'd had ethical concerns way back when, when the press - the New York Times's Walter Duranty especially - hailed murderous Uncle Joe Stalin's brilliant agricultural policies.

BDNYC said...

Undercover journalism is fine and ethical, so long as the journalist isn't breaking any laws. You should always assume that your interactions with strangers could be exposed to the whole world. You never know who's recording you or taking notes.

Newsworthiness is a different matter altogether.

Jupiter said...

It is ethical to publish the names of people who contributed to the political campaign against gay marriage. Unless, of course, they work for a company that will fire them when their contribution becomes known. No journalist would think of jeopardizing the career of some homophobic hater.

SGT Ted said...

"Is it a violation of journalistic ethics to pose as something you are not in order to gain newsworthy information?"

No. Next question.

Jupiter said...

traditionalguy said...

"That is so over now."

He has a point. If Bruce Jenner were in Rio, hooking up with guys, would that be a story? What if he were hooking up with gals? What if the guys were actually gals? What if ... oh, never mind.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Tree Joe stated it first. The ethical issue is that your story or release of certain information could subject the persons to death or being harmed. Outing homosexuals in a country were being a homosexual causes you to be killed, mutilated, thrown off of buildings is not worth a story.

The same issue came up when some State or City (I don't recall) wanted to publish the names and addresses of gun owners. Might this subject them to being robbed, being the target of others? Also might it not subject those who are NOT registered gun owners to crime. If it is known that you are not armed, might criminals decide that you are an easier target.

Releasing the names and address of police. Names of CIA workers. Names of informants. Etc

Either way, the ethical dilemma is will your story harm others? Cause them to be killed? Is it worth it?

Jupiter said...

It does that thing of calling on an expert to give a quote. They got Robert Drechsel, a just-retired professor here at my university, the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He was the James E. Burgess Chair in Journalism Ethics and director of the Center for Journalism Ethics, so he must know the answer to my question, but his quote is only that the article is "thoughtless, insensitive and unethical."

Which would seem to call into question wherein exactly lies the "expertise" of this "expert" that your university is lavishing taxpayer money upon. If you had half a million dollars, would you pay it to this bozo, in return for a year or so of his utterly useless pontification?

Chuck said...

BDNYC said...
Undercover journalism is fine and ethical, so long as the journalist isn't breaking any laws. You should always assume that your interactions with strangers could be exposed to the whole world. You never know who's recording you or taking notes.


No, it assuredly isn't that easy, in the serious world of journalism ethics. As the CJR observed:

http://www.cjr.org/review/the_lying_game.php

Dave Hasbach said...

Most reporters pose as objective reporters even though they're anything but objective. Unethical?

Bob Boyd said...

"Do these countries freely decorate cakes?"

I've spent some time in one of these countries and there the word cake is pronounced "cock".....small consolation.

Translation of sign in bakery window: Sharia compliant "cock" decorator on staff!

Kristian Holvoet said...

Of course it is unethical. Anytime it may unsettle or embarrass a liberal, journalists must ethically pass on the story. So says Comey and Lynch that 'No reasonable...yada'

MadisonMan said...

By the way; which Olympic athletes are gay males?

Yes, that's usually what I'm thinking when I watch sports.

Hmmm....this guy has a great kick in the 800. I wonder if he's gay?

Wow -- look at that iron cross in the rings! I wonder if he's gay?

I can't believe that Volleyball player got to that spike! I wonder if he's gay?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

No, they're perfectly consistent! James O'Keefe is a disgrace, remember, because he secretly filmed things and went undercover.
What's that, you say thousands and thousands of journalists also secretly filmed things, went undercover, and were widely praised by their fellow journalists and the Media?
No, that can't be correct, that'd mean the Media is full of shit and the only criteria that seems to matter is ideological conformity (guess the ideology). Since that can't be true the obvious facts must somehow be wrong.

Paco Wové said...

"Exactly what aspect of what Hines did is "unethical"?"

Quiet. He is an Expert, and he gave his Expert Opinion, and you are to Consume it without Question, you troublesome prole.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Going by hairdo and makeup, and effeminate behavior, I thought every professional soccer player was gay, but then I was all, like, no wait, that can't be right.

BrianE said...

You mean the Olympics is just a cover to hook up? I thought that was what college was for.

Laslo Spatula said...

No wonder the athletes' dorm rooms smelled of gay sex.

And ointment.

Obvious, now.

I am Laslo.

Big Mike said...

I have a copy of Prof. Drecshel's syllabus for his course on Journalist Ethics. It's an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper that is blank on both sides.

Amadeus 48 said...

Althouse--this whole topic is a journalism circle jerk...and, as usual, the NYT finishes first, third and ninth.
In the old days, if you had a point of view and a potential audience, you started a newspaper or wrote a pamphlet. Now you find space on the internet. The ancient and venerable media created the concept of ethics in journalism as a way of limiting competition--an important consideration in the days of advertiser-supported media. It also gives the journalists control over the message--an important consideration in the days of "there is no truth, there are only competing narratives".
Today, propaganda spews from every outlet. Jawing over outmoded "ethics in journalism" is a way of distracting from the story and changing the subject.
Let's stipulate: There is no such thing as ethics in journalism. Go to it.

Levi Starks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...The same issue came up when some State or City (I don't recall) wanted to publish the names and addresses of gun owners. Might this subject them to being robbed, being the target of others? Also might it not subject those who are NOT registered gun owners to crime. If it is known that you are not armed, might criminals decide that you are an easier target.

Releasing the names and address of police. Names of CIA workers. Names of informants. Etc

Either way, the ethical dilemma is will your story harm others? Cause them to be killed? Is it worth it?


I'm gonna make a small correction, there, DBQ: it was a newspaper that published the names and addresses of handgun permit holders in two NY counties (over the objection of some county officials). Wikipedia blurb is written in a very pro-NYTimes way, but it's pretty clear that people involved with the program believe that the Times article materially harmed anti-terror efforts. The 9/11 Commission says an article in the Washington Times caused Bin Laden to stop using his sat. phone and meant we couldn't track him any more, but as far as I know that was an inadvertent leak so ethically it's not the same thing as the NYTime's deliberate action.

Derek Kite said...

So the modern priesthood actually has ethics?

That is news. Journalist didn't do something because it wasn't ethical. Read all about it.

Who do they think they are fooling?

Guildofcannonballs said...

The solution, cheapies, is to pay people to say what you want. You don't pull an O'Keefe, you pay someone, whom later you can exterminate if need be of course, to take the risks for your future implied loyalty, which is their greedy delusion that feeds us our daily kale.

Think Hillary.

There is no truth or ethics or anything save power. The power of this knowledge exceeds that of much wealth, hence the riches-to-rags cliche.

The exceptions revolve around the ability and luck-of-the-timing after the expose in branding. This applies to everyone involved from the reporter to the subjects to the employers of each to the commenters online.

Jake said...

Huh. Double standards. Who knew?

Big Mike said...

But in the end, why is this news? We already know that Olympic villages, filled as they are with young, extremely physically fit, individuals at precisely the age when sexual activity is highest are hotbeds of sexual activity (Brazil stocked up with 450,000 condoms in the Olympic village in advance of the 2016 games). And we know that sexual orientation is no barrier to being a world class athlete. So why is it news that there are sexually active gay Olympic athletes?

lgv said...

So, it's OK if the journalist was gay and actually had gay sex?

If I call a leasing office about a property and pretend to be AA in order to discover discriminatory housing practices, it's wrong?



Dust Bunny Queen said...

it was a newspaper that published the names and addresses of handgun permit holders in two NY counties (over the objection of some county officials).

Ah...thank you Hoodlum. I couldn't remember the circumstances.

As to the ethics of journalism. I don't think that there is anything wrong with undercover journalism per se. Sometimes you need to get undercover or inside the organization to get the story. The dilemma is: weighing the importance of the story versus the harm (physical,mental or career destruction) to individual people if their identities are disclosed. Exposing people for the sheer novelty of it, or to advance your own career. Or is the story so very important to society as a whole that it would help or even save others. Exposing the abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, would IMO fall into a story that would be a societal good. Exposing the names of all of the women who had abortions, pointless and unethical.

In this case of gay sex at the Olympics, probably not a societal need to know or pressing urgency to expose such situation. The individuals who are outed, even if not by name but by country of origin, are now put in some difficult if not lethal situations. For what purpose?

JAORE said...

The girlfriend of a liberal friend once told me it was disgusting that the "far right"* treated President Obama so disrespectfully. She added that, "If you can't respect the man, you should still respect the office".

Of course I asked about how President Bush had been treated.

"Oh that's different. He DESERVED it."

Same with journalistic ethics.



*Lefties apparently believe there is a chasm between center and right, hence any conservative is "far" right.

traditionalguy said...

But you folks did know that Greek Olympics was done all naked all the time. It is getting back to the original pagan ways.

Todd said...

It is only considered "unethical" because it wasn't about closeted conservative men "targeted". Had it been then "its all good"...

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Are they kidding? I haven't watched it in several decades, but back in the Seventies undercover, secret camera stings were Sixty Minutes shtick and as I recall, they were getting all kinds of journalism rewards. If stings are now considered unethical, its because some leftist institution is being exposed.

That said, I can see no good reason to publish a story about gay sex among Olympic athletes, especially when doing so could endanger some of them.

I imagine that it was justified as not being purely prurient with the excuse that by doing so they would be demonstrating to young gays that they too could expire to be Olympians. But considering that its 2016, that is pretty much the equivalent of loudly and proudly proclaiming your hatred and opposition to slavery.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Brad…"

"Yes, Steve?"

"I have to say: you have a marvelous ass."

"Thanks, Steve. As an Olympic Athlete I need to be in peak condition."

"Yeah. But your ass: it is… exquisite."

"Sure… But I am most proud of my core. Sure, my shoulders and arms are strong, too, but without a strong core their strength is undermined. Everything must be the best it can be at this level of competition."

"Yes, yes. But your ass: it is like something Michelangelo would've created."

"Okay, okay. I'll admit it: I've been told I have a nice ass."

"With good reason, Brad: it might be the best ass I have ever seen."

"Thanks, I guess…"

"Brad…?"

"Yes, Steve?"

"I can't take my eyes off your ass. I just keep staring at it…"

"Uh…"

"I even dream about it: I dream about your ass, Brad."

"I get it, I get it. You want to fuck me in the ass, don't you, Steve."

"Now that you mention it, Brad, I WOULD like to fuck you in the ass."

"Steve, I'm sorry, but I'm not gay."

"Woah! Who said anything about gay?"

"You fucking me in the ass would be gay, Steve."

"No, no! This is not about straight or gay, men or women: this about two Olympians, at the peak of their physical condition, having Olympic Sex."

"Olympic Sex?"

"Yes!"

"But that would still mean you're fucking me in the ass, Steve."

"Yes, but I would be ass-fucking you as an Olympian…."

"I don't think that's going to work…."

"Well, how about you at least just bend over, naked, and I'll masturbate…"

"Steve: I'm sorry, but I didn't do that for Bob Costas when he asked, and I won't do that for you…"

"I understand, Brad."

"Thank you, Steve."

"But I've happened to notice that you have a fine cock, too…"

"Stop, Steve: just stop…"

I am Laslo.

Todd said...

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Going by hairdo and makeup, and effeminate behavior, I thought every professional soccer player was gay, but then I was all, like, no wait, that can't be right.

8/12/16, 9:11 AM


Why? Have you not heard of self-selection? They all could be gay, not that there is anything wrong with that...

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Man, I really need to drink some more coffee.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Fortunately, I had not yet gotten the coffee before reading Laslo's post, so I will not be needing a new laptop.

Todd said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
Fortunately, I had not yet gotten the coffee before reading Laslo's post, so I will not be needing a new laptop.

8/12/16, 10:45 AM


That was an "Olympian" effort wasn't it... :)

protestmanager said...

This is par for the course for the CJR:
PrimeTime Live’s decision to have producers falsify resumes and smuggle hidden cameras into a Food Lion grocery store sparked contentious litigation (an initial $5.5 million jury verdict against ABC was reduced on appeal to $2) and drew two articles in CJR (not online).

PrimeTime didn't get sued for falsifying resumes. PrimeTime got sued because they flagrantly lied in their "report".

http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/foodlion.html

But not until the grocery chain obtained some 45 hours of video "outtakes" [unused film] did its lawyers realize the extent of ABC's mendacity. ABC lawyers fought tooth and nail against the release of these outtakes, during which the one-year statute of limitations for a libel case expired. With the video evidence in hand, Food Lion sought to extend its case to include libel. ABC successfully kept the libel count out of the suit.

This report is intended to set the record straight about ABC and Food Lion.

--It will tell you how a hostile union enlisted ABC News as a witting partner in a campaign to destroy Food Lion, and how its officers helped ABC producers concoct the lies that enabled them to get jobs at the grocery chain.

--It will demonstrate how the undercover ABC producers performed much of the food handling mischief captured by their concealed cameras, and how the narration by network star Diane Sawyer did not match the images being shown to the public.

--It will document how ABC producers tried to lure Food Lion workers into violating company rules on the handling of food.

--And finally, it will show you how ABC News, the nation's most powerful TV network, set facts on their head in an attempt to deceive the public as to the significance of the jury verdict.

Read the whole thing.

And never trust anything from CJR / the Columbia Journalism Review.

protestmanager said...

TreeJoe said...
I think the ethics behind it are the risk of exposing homosexual athletes hailing from countries in which the result could be anything from loss of their position at the Olympics to death.


I'll consider that a worth issue when the people scolding the author for writing the story, spend lots of time scolding the countries that murder people for being gay.

The NYTimes seems perfectly fine with Muslims murdering gays. Until that changes, they have forfeited any moral authority to complain about someone potentially exposing gays to Muslim murder squads.

TWW said...

Nico Hines was mentored Joe McGinniss.

TWW said...

I always thought it was 'The Daily Breast'. Need to read more carefully.

Real American said...

you're forgetting one of the biggest undercover exposes of all time!

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/white-like-me/n9308

whitney said...

You seem to be unique human being. Though I would be happier if you were one of many

Will said...

I am sure the Supreme Court carefully weighed the Pros and Cons of getting too far out over their skis in ruling from the bench on Obergefell. SCOTUS made a choice not to let grassroots and States Rights set the law.

Now people that want to use American innovations like mobile apps and the internet want to have their cake and eat it too. Sure some countries aren't ready for that but SCOTUS duly deliberated and made a decision with global implications. Use American technology and be bound by American law.

Are wedding cake makers and wedding photographers the only ones who must change with the times? Or might it just be possible that closeted people might feel a bit of discomfort at the fierce moral imperative of social change?

Have you noticed how everyone is saying former congressman Mark Foley was "disgraced"? What is he disgraced for? He was a gay guy having gay sex with other gay guys. SCOTUS said we are supposed to celebrate that. So did Lin Manuel Miranda so it must be true. Mark Foley is just living his truth.

Perhaps Mark Foley must remain disgraced (for this week) to be morally comparable to a father who poisoned the mind of a mass murderer? After all it's important to judge who stands behind a politician at a speech.

Nobody is forcing people to use those apps like Grindr. But they are forcing them to bake cakes. Clearly SCOTUS is ok with discomfort on both sides. It's ok to break a few eggs to make the omelet. Unless you're an egg.

Joe said...

"Is it a violation of journalistic ethics to pose as something you are not in order to gain newsworthy information?"

If so, then almost all of journalist is a violation of their ethics since most journalists pose as intelligent. Most act interested in the story they are covering.

wildswan said...

What about if the atheletes involved had decided for their own reasons not to come out and then in the middle of competition, this decision of theirs is set aside by others for the purpose of making money. Will that help them compete? Maybe their competitors leaked their names to the reporter - he didn't name every gay athlete, did he? How did he choose? So the reporter selected some to mentally harass at this crucial moment for which they have been training and striving for years. I'd say that was unethical.

And there is no public need to know about the subject - it isn't as if the man running for mayor of New York is presenting himself as a family man while sexting women. Or as if the President was screwing interns in the Oval Office. Or as if the First First Lady Man was selling access to everything and and everybody and every body.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Brad?"

"Yes, Steve?"

"As an Olympian, I am very flexible and limber."

"We ARE in Peak Physical Condition, Steve."

"Brad?"

"Yes, Steve?"

"Are you able to suck your own cock? Because I can suck my own cock."

"I've never tried, Steve. Nor am I interested in ever trying."

"It's not like I do it all the time. It's just good to know I CAN do it. You know, if I needed to."

"If you needed to?"

"Yeah?"

"Exactly when would that be?"

"I don't know. If I was alone on a desert island, maybe."

"Okay."

"Brad?"

"Yes, Steve?"

"Do you want to see me suck my own cock? You know: just for fun?"

"I have no interest in that, either, Steve."

"I mean, I can get all of it in. ALL of it. I think it's remarkable, actually."

"I'll take your word for it."

"You sure you don't want to watch? I mean, if YOU could suck your own cock I'd certainly watch."

"We're not having this conversation, Steve."

"Okay, okay."

"Thank you."

"Brad?"

"Yes, Steve?"

"Are you able to stick your entire fist up your ass? Because I can stick my ENTIRE fist up my ass…"

"Steve…"

"Okay, okay. Maybe I'll save that for later…"


I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Brad?"

"Yes, Steve?"

"Have you ever had a three-way?"

"Three-way? You mean sex with two women at the same time?"

"Sure, two women. Or it could be two men, whoever is there, really."

"Let me guess: you had a three-way with two men."

"Now that you mention it: Yes. Yes I have."

"I'm not really interested in hearing about --"

"We were all there for the North American Championships."

"So…"

"So, North American Champion Sex. Nothing gay about that."

"Except for the other two male athletes."

"Well, only one was an athlete. The other was a room-service guy from the hotel. I think he was Mexican."

"His lucky day."

"I know."

"Perhaps we can talk about something else. Like our upcoming competitions, maybe…"

"Yeah. Anyway, I'm sucking the athlete's cock, and Ramon has HIS cock in my ass --"

"I don't think I need to hear the rest of this…"

"Sure, sure. You get the picture."

"Unfortunately, I do."

"Brad?"

"Yes, Steve?"

"Do you want to order Room Service…?"


I am Laslo.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

DBQ - sorry, I mangled my post (apparently I deleted a whole paragraph in the middle).

CNN: New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owner Names & Addresses

They could easily have published the info on a neighborhood or zip-code level, but made the decision to publish personal info instead even though it 100% put people at additional risk.

Wiki: NYTimes Disclosure of Terrorist Finance Tracking Program

The point on that second one was that the program was successful and was being used as a tool to fight terrorism--Democrats and Republicans both asked the Times not to run the story (as did the Treasury Sec.) but they ran it anyway.

n.n said...

Transgender/homosexuals have entered the mainstream. Almost. Blocked by patrons with conflicts of interest.

Static Ping said...

Having random gay sex in Rio is probably not the best choice for optimal future health outcomes. The place is an incubator for disease. I suppose it could be relevant to Olympic officials in various countries. Paying for cocktails of pills so your long jumper's genitalia does not fall off in the middle of a meet gets expensive.

JamesB.BKK said...

Guessing I missed the expressions of concern in the business about posing as customers at gas pumps in order lay ground for accusations that all gas jockeys / driveway salesman are tire-slashing frauds (that line of work for those starting out no longer meaningfully exists in the US) or posing as butchery employees to lay ground for accusations that all meat-handlers at stores sell raunchy meat. No suggestion here that raunchy meat relates directly to this story, but please do wash up.