hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

what's wrong with that headline? miley cyrus made out with a victoria's secret model and possibly fingered her. it states what happens in the video.

i think the possible fingering doesn't happen in the video, it happens in you

what's wrong with that headline is that it seems a completely insane and repugnant thing to report as news

why

you're through the looking glass, jordan, you know that?

what does it feel like over there?

a major celebrity engaging in a public sex act -- even if jokingly -- should not be reported on a celebrity news website?

there's nothing in that headline that suggests that it was public, and if there wasn't a "sex act" involved, the story is "Citizen Kisses Citizen."

“A lot of our traffic last year came from stories that we weren’t ultimately proud of,” Mr. Denton said.

That would be a pretty weird headline sic

otoh I appreciate J0rdan's article about Affleck's new home, good commentary on both the celebrity media's obsession w/star's lives combined with some old-fashioned goofing

Then Miley sticks her hand in Maxwell’s pants, which is blurred out in the TMZ video for the appearance of standards.

there's nothing in that headline that suggests that it was public, and if there wasn't a "sex act" involved, the story is "Citizen Kisses Citizen."

― back once again with the panel behaviour (sic), Thursday, July 2, 2015 6:13 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark

miley cyrus is not a citizen

she is a citizen of these united states of america, sir

something like that would've been covered on gawker in much the same way throughout gawker's existence so i'm guessing people are now just looking at gawker/this thread to make themselves mad

that said, that 'obama performs blackness' thinkpiece was one of the hackiest things i've read in a while

Why are you ppl holding gawker to the quality standards of like the Wall Street journal or some shit???

I assume people just like to give Jordan shit

sure, i guess.

but why does he bother defending the shit site he's a part of, is the question? they have ridiculously low standards, they routinely violate people's privacy in the name of bullshit "news" that is of no value to anyone, and yet jordan and others seem to think they're doing god's work instead of being rightfully embarrassed at how they make a living (if indeed they make a living).

that sounded really 'emo'.

i guess i was just irritated the few times that some poorly-sourced article built on hearsay was championed as some kind of truth-to-power thing. if you're peddling the blogger version of smut, then own up to it. don't pretend you're looking out for the little guy or whatever.

Applied to the rest of the day's news:

Obana, in Wisconsin, Takes On And Possible Fingers Scott Walker

Robot Kills and Possible Fingers Worker in Germany

Apple Enters and Possibly Fingers The Music Streaming Business

posting death photos to yr main page with blood an brain matter all over the ground with only the slightest pixelization over the gunshot wound is just gross as fuck, seriously, put that shit behind a fucking click-through.

twitter has totally destigmatized the Faces Of Death-era avoidance of publishing pictures of dead people in mainstream media, every other day is like oh someone got killed on camera HERE LOOK

I've not once seen pictures of dead ppl on twitter tbh. Also, it seems fairly easy to unfollow ppl who would post such things. I'm not even saying don't post it ~at all~, but ffs why am I not given the choice of whether or not I want to see some dead dude's brains? I mean it's not like I'm breathlessly clutching the pearls scrolling through rotten.com or something

oh yeah, that was totally gross and unnecessary.

"Then Miley sticks her hand in Maxwell’s pants, which is blurred out in the TMZ video for the appearance of standards."

Thankfully the appearance of standards is not a gawker concern.

miley cyrus is not a citizen

― J0rdan S., Thursday, July 2, 2015 11:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'd love to hear more on this - sounds like the kind of thing Sun/Daily Mail showbiz reporters say. Do you believe there is there any difference between what you're doing with a post like this and what they do?

Cell block and locked - I never clock it y'all
'Cause time and time again time
They got me servin' to those and to them
I'm not a citizen
But ever when I catch a C-O
Sleepin' on the job - my plan is on go-ahead
On the strength, I'ma tell you the deal
I got nothin' to lose
'Cause I'm goin' for the steel

I'd love to hear more on this - sounds like the kind of thing Sun/Daily Mail showbiz reporters say. Do you believe there is there any difference between what you're doing with a post like this and what they do?

― Your Ribs are My Ladder, Friday, July 3, 2015 5:17 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

i don't know that much about british tabloids but i think gawker's celeb coverage is better than those on several diff levels, yes

for real

I'm proud to count Miley as an American citizen.

That specific story didn't seem so bad though. It made me want to give Miley Cyrus a high five.

did you guys talk about the jezebel writer not getting a tattoo

that was stupid. tattoo artists are allowed to deny you. many tattoo artists do not tattoo on necks. that shit was infuriating.

She has a 22 year old nanny

fave recent gawker moment

http://i.imgur.com/k1w7fqn.png

A few weeks ago, I was refused a tattoo. At a tattoo parlor. By a tattoo artist. At 1 p.m. on a Sunday, prior to consuming any Bloody Marys.

*keeps reading*

I'd love to hear more on this - sounds like the kind of thing Sun/Daily Mail showbiz reporters say. Do you believe there is there any difference between what you're doing with a post like this and what they do?

― Your Ribs are My Ladder, Friday, July 3, 2015 5:17 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

i don't know that much about british tabloids but i think gawker's celeb coverage is better than those on several diff levels, yes

― J0rdan S., Friday, July 3, 2015 5:30 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I guess I meant more in the idea that British tabloids don't believe celebrities are citizens, or don't deserve the same level of respect or privacy because they're in the public eye, i.e. they've 'chosen' that life, so everything's fair game. I was just curious about the 'she's not a citizen' thing you said.

that tattoo artist posted on a blog somewhere about his perspective, how tattoo artists have rights of refusal, lots of them have a code where they won't do work in "job killer" places (face, neck, hands etc) unless the person is already heavily done up etc. it was kind of interesting.

then it was picked up by antifeminists and other people who hate "outrage culture" or just hate jezebel generally. another day on the internet more or less.

xp i don't really have more to say on the subject other than "i don't think celebrities have the same expectation of privacy as average citizens," it's pretty self-explanatory i think

then shut up

legally speaking a "public figure" can expect a different standard of treatment than a "private individual" but it's not always clear where the line is drawn. judges often tend to see "public figures" largely as people involved in political life (esp. elected officials) since there's a public interest in folks being allowed to criticize them and know what they are up to.

using this legal framework as an excuse to post articles with paparazzi photographs of celebrities on vacation etc. cannot really be justified except in terms of the bottom line. the paparazzi do some pretty awful things and sites that utilize them are obviously complicit in that. so, in fact, are all the people who click on their articles. but that isn't an excuse for gawker et al.

not entirely self explanatory: do you mean to say "i don't think celebrities have the same expectation of privacy as average citizens" (i.e. they don't expect it to be so) or "i don't think celebrities have the same expectation of privacy as average citizens" (i.e., in my opinion, being a public figure means they don't have the right to expect the same level of privacy as a plebe) or "i don't think celebrities have the same expectation of privacy as average citizens" (i.e. everyone is in on the game, everyone is culpable, we're all normal horrible people)

"they" in that first option being "celebrities", natch

legally speaking...

i'm pretty sure gossip/tabloids are legal

xpost

If you didn't believe some combination of all three of those options, would you ever take a job writing for Gawker?

then it was picked up by antifeminists and other people who hate "outrage culture" or just hate jezebel generally. another day on the internet more or less.

― goole, Monday, July 6, 2015 12:02 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in fairness it was a pretty egregious example of outrage culture

tattoo artists shd refuse to tattoo anyone imo

after all there are two kinds of people in this world: tattoo artists that refuse to tattoo anyone and those that don't

tattoo artists that refuse to tattoo anyone are like those pro-life "pregnancy counseling" centers where your "advice about abortion options" is "don't get an abortion"

i swear--by my life and my love of it--that i will never tattoo the neck of another man, nor ask another man to tattoo mine