- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is anyone else following the David Geithner/Gawker Scandal?
Posted on 7/17/15 at 3:44 pm to Keys Open Doors
Posted on 7/17/15 at 3:44 pm to Keys Open Doors
Uses fake last name and fake email address...
Uses real cell phone number, sends real picture, uses real first name, and uses family address....
The guy wasn't very good about concealing his identity which obviously was of some importance to him if he was using fake stuff.
Uses real cell phone number, sends real picture, uses real first name, and uses family address....
The guy wasn't very good about concealing his identity which obviously was of some importance to him if he was using fake stuff.
0
Posted on 7/17/15 at 3:52 pm to Keys Open Doors
I meant to start a thread on this this morning but forgot.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, the story is fricked, it makes no sense to make this into a story. Geithner is not really a public figure, and it has no real importance. Gawker is gross, and the people there are just soulless trash for the most part, IMO.
On the other hand, I do think the left side of the media outrage probably wouldn't care much if there wasn't homosexuality involved, which is telling and weird. Further, a lot of the people upset about this would have no qualms about doing it to a political adversary (like Daily Kos would, for example).
Anyway, this was a pretty accurate Twitter take on how Gawker works, from last night:
Ethan Booker ?@Ethan_Booker 19h19 hours ago
GAWKER WRITER: boss, i got a story here about a guy who got all horned up. but get this, for another guy.
GAWKER EDITOR: print it, baby.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, the story is fricked, it makes no sense to make this into a story. Geithner is not really a public figure, and it has no real importance. Gawker is gross, and the people there are just soulless trash for the most part, IMO.
On the other hand, I do think the left side of the media outrage probably wouldn't care much if there wasn't homosexuality involved, which is telling and weird. Further, a lot of the people upset about this would have no qualms about doing it to a political adversary (like Daily Kos would, for example).
Anyway, this was a pretty accurate Twitter take on how Gawker works, from last night:
Ethan Booker ?@Ethan_Booker 19h19 hours ago
GAWKER WRITER: boss, i got a story here about a guy who got all horned up. but get this, for another guy.
GAWKER EDITOR: print it, baby.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 3:55 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
He is not a public figure and is not a gay basher or anything else.
That's a strange line in the sand you are drawing.
The public figure thing makes sense (except I think it's debatable). But, why would being a "gay basher" matter. It sounds like you are saying that being a "gay basher" is so objectionable that it would justify his outing.
Of course, if that's the case, one would wonder why you wouldn't consider a married man who attempts to hire a gay pornstar prostitute as objectionable enough to justify the outing.
Can you elaborate on your position?
Posted on 7/17/15 at 3:59 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
CFO of Conde Nast is not a public figure
But, CEO of Mozilla is?
Didn't Gawker treat this situation the same way it treated Brendan Eich?
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:01 pm to lsu480
quote:
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that the crimes he committed, some of which are federal, are what got him into a situation where he was going to use his brothers influence with the POTUS? How is that not a legit story?
Of course it is legit.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:03 pm to moneyg
quote:
The public figure thing makes sense (except I think it's debatable)
Would the average member of the public know who the CFO of Conde Nash is?
How on earth is this guy a "public figure"
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:03 pm to moneyg
quote:
But, CEO of Mozilla is?
Didn't Gawker treat this situation the same way it treated Brendan Eich?
This is the comparison I thought of when it broke. Not sure it's a true analogy, but it shows how ideology matters.
Few in media were mourning Eich getting railroaded for nothing.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:04 pm to moneyg
quote:
where he was going to use his brothers influence with the POTUS?
Except there is literally not one shred of proof of this.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:05 pm to Keys Open Doors
frick Gawker for publishing that and double frick their pathetic justifications for it.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:09 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Would the average member of the public know who the CFO of Conde Nash is?
The average member of the public doesn't know what Conde Nast is or what line of business they're in.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:10 pm to moneyg
quote:
But, why would being a "gay basher" matter. It sounds like you are saying that being a "gay basher" is so objectionable that it would justify his outing.
Hypocrisy. If a public figure is known for being anti-gay while hiring gay prostitutes, it makes sense to go after someone trying to legislate morals while flagrantly ignoring his own rules in his personal life. Similar to a politician who votes for aggressive drug penalties and is then caught with drugs. This happened with a US Rep from Florida a couple years ago.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:11 pm to moneyg
quote:
The public figure thing makes sense (except I think it's debatable). But, why would being a "gay basher" matter. It sounds like you are saying that being a "gay basher" is so objectionable that it would justify his outing.
If a person is secretly gay, thats ok, who gives a shite?
If they are secretly gay while publicly attacking gay people and spending big amounts of cash to do so, that isnt ok and that person should be exposed for being a massive hypocrite.
Not sure why you'd need it explained.
quote:
Of course, if that's the case, one would wonder why you wouldn't consider a married man who attempts to hire a gay pornstar prostitute as objectionable enough to justify the outing.
B/c if he isn't actively trying to demonize a large group of people (that he is actually a member of) he should be left lone.
again, not sure why you'd think otherwise.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:27 pm to Dr RC
quote:
If a person is secretly gay, thats ok, who gives a shite?
If they are secretly gay while publicly attacking gay people and spending big amounts of cash to do so, that isnt ok and that person should be exposed for being a massive hypocrite.
Not sure why you'd need it explained.
Yeah. I hadn't considered the hypocrisy angle. I agree that he is not a hypocrite. His original comment instead sounded like being a gay basher on its own would have justified the article.
I think many are pointing out the pretty obvious truth that the backlash is related to the guy being gay. Compare it to the Brendan Eich situation. Didn't the Gawker handle his situation the same way? He's not a public figure. He just did something objectionable.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:36 pm to rondo
quote:
yeah, no blame should be assigned to the guy cheating on his wife with dudes.
They don't even have conclusive proof it was David Geithner in the article. The return address is a home owned by the Geithner family and whoever answered the phone identified himself as David. That could easily be faked if you were out to get him.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:40 pm to GWfool
I think the guy answering the phone was his brother, who probably had no idea anything was going on and was merely spending a week at the family vacation home.
They have enough proof to run the story without being accused of actual malice in my opinion. They won't be paying Geithner a penny in damages. But the damages to Gawker could be worse than anything than a $500,000-$1 million settlement.
They have enough proof to run the story without being accused of actual malice in my opinion. They won't be paying Geithner a penny in damages. But the damages to Gawker could be worse than anything than a $500,000-$1 million settlement.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:45 pm to moneyg
quote:
Compare it to the Brendan Eich situation. Didn't the Gawker handle his situation the same way? He's not a public figure. He just did something objectionable.
Can't recall what Gawker said about him.
I thought it was a bit over the top the way people went after him but at the very least it was over the fact that donated money in support of Cali's prop 8 gay marriage ban. The people protesting at least had a reason to protest him. It was shitty but at least there was a point to it all. A mediocre point at best, but a point nonetheless.
This other piece though? The only real reason I can think of for Gawker running this is some sort of retaliation for him being tangentially associated with a rival company.
This post was edited on 7/17/15 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:46 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
They have enough proof to run the story without being accused of actual malice in my opinion.
they have about as much proof as Rolling Stone had with the Virginia frat rape story.
This post was edited on 7/17/15 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:48 pm to Pettifogger
Whether the allegations are true or not, I think what most people should be disturbed by is the continual blurring of public and private. The internet has really distorted a generation's idea of what it means to be a public figure. A massive click bait site like Gawker has no journalistic credibility to hurt, but they do have the ability to quickly and drastically alter internet search results for an ordinary private figure.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 4:56 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
I think the guy answering the phone was his brother, who probably had no idea anything was going on and was merely spending a week at the family vacation home.
They have enough proof to run the story without being accused of actual malice in my opinion. They won't be paying Geithner a penny in damages. But the damages to Gawker could be worse than anything than a $500,000-$1 million settlement.
Or the escort could have had someone answer the phone as David Geithner. They don't have any conclusive proof. They don't cite the phone records for the phone number or even confirm the supposed hotel reservation. They have something that could have been fabricated very easily.
Posted on 7/17/15 at 5:05 pm to Keys Open Doors
I still love that Gawker went apeshit over the people who leaked nudes during the fappening, and then a few months later dropped the Hulk Hogan sex tape.
The gawker empire loves to call out the big boys of media when they "bully" or are involved in shitty journalism. When Gawker is accused of doing the exact same thing, their response is usually along the lines of "frick yea we did it. And frick you if you have a problem with it."
It's odd. When these scandals break over gawker's journalistic process/tactics they pretty much always double down.
The gawker empire loves to call out the big boys of media when they "bully" or are involved in shitty journalism. When Gawker is accused of doing the exact same thing, their response is usually along the lines of "frick yea we did it. And frick you if you have a problem with it."
It's odd. When these scandals break over gawker's journalistic process/tactics they pretty much always double down.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News