tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3856837.post3898537245400699592..comments2023-10-24T09:06:30.200-04:00Comments on No More Mister Nice Blog: DEAR GAWKER: IF YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE THE ELITE CLASS DOWN A PEG, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONGSteve M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11963290427258439242noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3856837.post-27127268403720008792015-07-20T09:18:33.571-04:002015-07-20T09:18:33.571-04:00Bit late to this but just to remind on what 'o...Bit late to this but just to remind on what 'outing' originally was, as outlined by Michaelangelo Signorile in the early 90s. 'Outing' was not about targeting the powerful, it was about telling the whole truth - it was about journalism. The reason you would refer to someone's sexuality was because it was relevant. In other words you would not treat that sexuality as an awful secret that had to be hidden.<br /><br />Here's something I wrote on that context http://paulocanning.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/outing-and-positive-images-in-hollywood.htmlpaulocanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17499916652508144662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3856837.post-62235725733430274982015-07-19T01:54:27.406-04:002015-07-19T01:54:27.406-04:00Huh, interesting take. I think the article in que...Huh, interesting take. I think the article in question was ghastly and sleazy and should never have been published. The person it targeted seems to have done little -to-nothing wrong. Except trying to meet for extramarital sex with an unhinged no-good hustler extortionist whose blackmail Gawker gladly accommodated. I was very happy to see the instant and near-universal condemnation of this awful sleazy hit-job on a private guy with a wife and kids. Not a public figure, no one had to know, and Gawker ran with this, naming the vulnerable man and shielding the identity of his blackmailer. Who seems to be insane, deluded.<br /><br />Gawker ought to rightly be sued off the face of the Internet. Hulk Hogan already has a $100 million suit against then, how'd they like another $100 million suit, for invasion of privacy and accessory to extortion? <br />The victim in question never even MET this hustler. And that Jordan Sargent ought to give up ever writing again, his article was such a scummy bit of "journalism, I hope he's sued too. Because this was a dreadful and horrible invasion of a guy's privacy, such a public airing of what should have been a private thing between consenting adults. Jordan Sargent dragged the guy's name and family into it. Like some 1950s morals squad. Eff him, and I hope Gawker gets sued to oblivion. Belvoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434724232693713684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3856837.post-76048638977347483302015-07-18T10:39:10.115-04:002015-07-18T10:39:10.115-04:00That's why I never read gossipy shit.
It does...That's why I never read gossipy shit.<br /><br />It doesn't effect me in the least, so why should I give a shit - or two shit's, for that matter?<br />Some exec from X or Y company soliciting sex from a male or female prostitute?<br />That's between the exec, his/her spouse, and the prostitute.<br /><br />Somebody having an affair, or paying someone for sex, is as old as humankind.<br />Not news.<br /><br />Now, you catch some fire-'n-brimstone anti-gay preacher in bed with a teenage male hooker, that's not gossip:<br />That's a hypocrite acting hypocritically!<br />And, ergo: News.<br /><br /><br />Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06609452382111686086noreply@blogger.com