Shots in the Dark

10 Responses

• Elliott
  12/31/2014 6:18 am

  This is one of the more bizarre articles I have read recently. To prove Dunham is not a liar they prove that Dunham is a liar. If they are trying to mitigate damages for “Barry” they just doubled them.

• Fabs
  12/31/2014 7:26 am

  WOW! I consider myself to be a liberal but that’s an all-time low for liberal media. I mean, in order to defend their supreme idol and icon from “unjust conservative attacks” you name a man who has no charges or evidences against him as a potential rapist?

  That’s terrible. Mainstream Media won’t name Rolling Stone Jackie to this day even though it is becoming quite clear she is NOT a rape victim… but will instantly name an accused without any other proof but Lena’s own account? Just to save her face from the backlash?

  I mean, Lena herself didn’t want to name the guy.. but Gawker came to her rescue to say “He DOES exist.. here.. his name, address and Bank account… we don’t know if he did what she said he did but there is a guy who fits the description she gave… don’t EVER doubt Lena again”

  I am shocked!

• Dancing with Mr. D
  12/31/2014 11:47 am

  The Gawker article shows that Lena and Sabrina made similar moves to make sure they had the “right” rapists in their stories. Real mass rape, like at Rotherham, doesn’t interest these types of feminists because they feature the “wrong” type of rapists – rapists of color. Nor do these Jewish women want any internecine trouble with their co-ethnic Jewish male counterparts. So Sabrina took great pains to find the correct location, where “overwhelmingly blond” goys where systematically raping girls on beds of shattered glass. And even then she tripped up when it turned out two of Eric Cantor’s sons were in the wrongly accused frat.

  In Lena’s case, in her book proposal she was fairly open about who the alleged “rapist” was although she still tried to claim he was a Republican. Later she totally “goyified” her guy into a purple cowboy-boot wearing College Republican, in others words, anything but the rich, privileged, and powerful media-connected Jewish guy.

  There is also a slight connection with Lena’s description of rape and the case of Julian Assange. Assange was accused of rape in Sweden because he supposedly removed his condom. This is also Lena’s claim. Assange is something of a hero to many on the left and if she were to be accused of intentionally creating a story to reinforce the Assange case could cause some divisiveness within her ranks.

• SPMoore8
  12/31/2014 12:16 pm

  Seems like gutter journalism to me. In order to justify the street cred of someone they like, they have named someone without any actual evidence of sexual assault. Hard to believe that anyone would be so irresponsible. Politics and clicks seem to be the only explanation.

• Dave
  12/31/2014 3:14 pm

  I will repeat here the same post that I left at Gawker for this article, I will up-front admit to a strong dislike for virtually all Gawker Media properties. They hide behind some notion of “fearlessly speaking the truth” when really they’re forums for snark, negative emotional manipulation, self-righteousness, and a lack of civility just for the sake of being outrageous to drive page views. (See, as an example, Anna Merlan’s attack on Mr. Bradley at Jezebel - another Gawker Media property - on 12/2/14.) If I ever meet Nick Denton - and there’s no reason that I would - I would like to ask him how he feels good about making the world a worse place. It’s not like he is murdering people, but he (through Gawker) has done his bit to make societal discourse less civil and less intelligent. Anyway:

  “J.K. apparently doesn’t have much sense of proper journalistic standards of fact - a failing that I expect to be the case for anyone employed by Gawker Media - so let’s point out just how many mistakes have been made here:

  - first, Gawker has named this person, accusing him of a serious felony, on thin evidence that Dunham attempted not to make public. I hope that Mr. Ungar ends up being able to win a libel suit against Gawker, Dunham, or both;

  - Gawker has completely missed the point with a line like this: “Dunham argued that these details were intended to conceal, not reveal, her alleged rapist’s identity.” Well, if that’s the case, where the hell was the disclaimer in a book that is billed as autobiographical - i.e., true. As I understand it - see this article http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/publisher-alter-lena-dunham-book-755193 - there originally wasn’t even a disclaimer indicating that Barry could be a pseudonym, much less that identifying details were (or may have been) changed;

  - it is crystal f-ing clear what Dunham did in her book and why it upset a lot of people in conservative media. A major point of her story was for it to be intended as an attack on Republicans - see how bad they are, one of them raped me in college. As others have pointed out, identifying someone as the “campus’s resident conservative”, plus providing other details, more or less identifies this person - at least to people who were at Oberlin at the time - or certainly reduces the possibility to a handful. Oberlin is a 2,900 student college with a student body noted for being politically liberal.

  If Dunham couldn’t figure out what she was doing, she’s even dumber than I previously thought. Much like Gawker’s writers, though, I think the real answer is that she’s too busy being an entitled, self-righteous narcissist (and trying to think of her next snarky quip) to give any thought to the impact that her actions have on other people.”

• TRT
  12/31/2014 3:17 pm

  > Seems like gutter journalism.

  Too generous. Definitely gutter, not sure about “journalism.”

  There must be a new word or phrase for it.

  Anyone?

• Bill
  1/1/2024 5:59 pm

  Typical Gawker Media. I used to like their snarky takes on current events but these days it’s like having some sort of militant liberal shouting in your face every day.

• The Enemy
  1/6/2024 3:00 pm

  Wait, didn’t Gawker drop a thermonuclear bitch-bomb on some internet gadfly who “doxxed” Jackie? Exactly how is this different?

• The Enemy
  1/6/2024 3:31 pm

  “There must be a new word or phrase for it.

  Anyone?”

  I think just “Gawker journalism” will cover it.

• InterestedObserver
  1/7/2024 1:16 pm

  Just as we now have ‘Gruberisims’ (named after the infamous MIT professor who helped the Liar-in-Chief pass his corrupt health care legislation), we now have ‘Gawkerisims’…

Leave a Reply