UPDATED: Gawker, KTVA, and The Myth of Principle
Gawker has felt compelled to issue a defense of the 3-year-old dirt it published about Christine O’Donnell that is not so much a defense as a doubling-down.
In fact, their headline says they would publish it all over again if they had the chance. The reason they give for feeling so confident that their cause is the right one is that their goal was to “expose the lies and hypocrisy of a U.S. Senate candidate and prominent Tea Party conservative who uses her own purported chastity and righteousness to market herself and gain political power”.
Lies and hypocrisy? O’Donnell has not campaigned on asceticism or run on virginity. Gawker seems to base their charge of hypocrisy on O’Donnell’s own writings from 12 years ago. But is it a fact that those old writings of hers from 1998 were not unearthed by someone who opposes her candidacy? (if so, O’Donnell’s campaign managers are ripping her off). At any rate, wasn’t it Keynes – whom Gawker has hailed before – who said “When the facts change, I change my mind?”
We’re talking about O’Donnell’s personal life here. Sexual conduct, not her political beliefs. I’d find it more scandalous if she had past associations with a former Weatherman, but that’s just me. If she in fact led a sexual morality movement in the 90′s, that’s completely unconnected to her current campaign. Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright we are supposed to let slide, but pushing abstinence is just to horrible to overlook, I suppose.
If Gawker is so against lies and hypocrisy in marketing oneself and acquiring political power, how come it gave no coverage at all to Al Gore – who is the de facto leader of a socio-political movement – recently beclowning himself while giving a speech in Sweden? Gore’s emissions faux pas is full of irony, right up Gawker’s alley, and a mere pecadillo compared to the alarmism and misinformation on which he’s built his post-White House career. But somehow, someone decided it wasn’t Gawker material.
Gawker‘s efforts at justifying itself are to be expected. And publishing truthful dirt on anyone is very much their right. But blaming their editorial choices vis a vis O’Donnell on a principled stance against lies and hypocrisy is hard to believe or take seriously. How about just admitting to not liking Republican candidates, period? It’s not like Gawker routinely hides its political sympathies. What’s the big deal?
Then there’s Alaskan CBS affiliate KTVA 11‘s newsroom management which refuses to accept responsibility for statements made while allegedly conspiring to defame U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller. Their response to the allegations is weak – and even pathetic: “The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do.” And yet they were caught speaking in the first person. Do you ever talk about “what others might be able to do” using the pronoun “we”? I didn’t think so.
It’s much more respectable to your audience – or readership – to admit your biases. Gawker refusing to admit to them is hard to comprehend, given that they’ve never been shy about them in the past. As for KTVA’s tortured explanation of the words their newsroom honchos are caught saying on tape…well, they’re a CBS affiliate. CBS as in Dan Rather. Dan Rather as in MSM. ‘Nuff said.
UPDATE: Related: The Alaska Media and Their Tell. And some KTVA coverage from the WSJ.
MORE: Does Big Journalism‘s Larry O’Connor read The Rhetorican? I doubt it, but let’s just say he and I are both equally perceptive.
