« | »

Gawker Paid For O’Donnell ‘Slut-Shaming’

From the Politico:

Christine O’Donnell camp rips Gawker ‘slander’

By: Andy Barr
October 29, 2010

Christine O’Donnell’s campaign late Thursday night responded to an anonymous Gawker post claiming a drunken encounter with Delaware’s Republican Senate nominee, calling it “sexism and slander.”

"This story is just another example of the sexism and slander that female candidates are forced to deal with — from Secretary [Hillary] Clinton to Gov. [Sarah] Palin to soon-to-be Gov. [Nikki] Haley. Christine’s political opponents have been willing to engage in appalling and baseless attacks — all with the aim of distracting the press from covering the real issues in this race," O’Donnell Communications Director Doug Sachtleben wrote in a post on Facebook.

Aren’t these the "real issues"? It’s all our news media talks about, especially if they can work in the ‘B-Word’ or even better the ‘W-Word.’

The gossip website Gawker on Thursday posted an anonymous account of a man who said he had had a one-night stand with O’Donnell three years ago on Halloween.

And the Gawker story, with its headline: ‘I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell’ – was clearly meant to imply that this had been a drunken sexual encounter. Which is not even claimed in the article.

But notice that this minor detail is not spelled out by the Politico, either.

Gawker reportedly paid the man in the "low four figures" for the account and pictures of O’Donnell dressed up like a ladybug.

It is also reported that Remy Stern, an editor at Gawker, paid in the "low four figures" for the O’Donnell story, after the anonymous author had shopped it elsewhere.

More tellingly, Mr. Stern said the man approached Gawker with this piece 11 days ago. So it’s clear that Gawker waited to publish it yesterday to get inflict the maximum amount of damage to O’Donnell’s campaign.

By the way, in memo to the staff, Gawker’s Media chief, Nick Denton, praised the O’Donnell post as  "an example of brilliant packaging."

The site has been widely criticized by media outlets for posting the item and was denounced Thursday by the National Organization for Women.

"NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece," the organization said in a statement. "It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere."

Somehow NOW always manages to be the ‘last-est with the least-est,’ when it comes to criticizing attacks on conservative or Republican women. That is, when they bother to respond at all. (See NOW’s bizarre press release below.)

Coons did not respond for comment on the Gawker post to POLITICO, and the Republican’s Facebook post attempts to link the post to the Coons camp.

"Even the National Organization for Women gets it, but Christine’s opponent disturbingly does not," Sachtleben wrote. "Classless Coons goons have proven yet again to have no sense of common decency or common sense with their desperate attacks to get another rubber stamp for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. Such attacks are truly shameful, but they will not distract us from making our case to Delaware voters — and keeping the focus on Chris Coons’s record of higher taxes, increased spending and, as he has done again here, breaking his promises to the voters."

Behold the powerfully damning press release from the National Organization Of Woman:

NOW to Media: Stop Reducing Women Candidates to Sex Objects

Statement of NOW President Terry O’Neill
October 28, 2010

Sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process, regardless of a particular candidate’s political ideology.

Today the tabloid website Gawker published an anonymous piece titled "I Had A One-Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell" that takes the routine sexual degradation of women candidates to a disgusting new low. NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.

NOW/PAC has proudly endorsed women’s rights champion Chris Coons, O’Donnell’s opponent in the Delaware Senate race, and finds O’Donnell’s political positions dangerous for women. That does not mean it’s acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.

NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different.

Really? The only incident we can recall is NOW’s notorious backtracking after Meg Whitman was called the ‘W-Word’ by Mr. Brown or his wife or one of his closest aides.

Perhaps NOW should tell Gawker that if they run this story again, they will be in trouble.

Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O’Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won’t stand for it.

So get out there and vote for the man who is probably ultimately behind this great hit piece!

By the way, notice how the NOW press release, by repeating the Gawker headline, conveniently perpetuates the impression that there actually was a drunken sexual encounter. In fact, calling this "slut-shaming" makes it sound like Ms. O’Donnell is indeed a slut.

Again, even the anonymous source of the story states that no sex occurred at this alleged encounter. But NOW is too busy campaigning for Mr. Coons to bothered to mention that.

And never mind that it is against the law for a 501c3 "charity" like NOW to publicly endorse and campaign for a political candidate. The laws are for conservatives and other little people.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, October 29th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “Gawker Paid For O’Donnell ‘Slut-Shaming’”

  1. proreason says:

    The problem with this ridiculous claim is that heterosexual men (97-99% of the population) have a highly accurate device for measuring female sexual attractiveness.

    Mine is telling me that Christine O’Donnell, without question, wouldn’t need to pick up an anonymous man for a one-night stand if she was ever in the mood for some amoral nooky. And that would be true even if she hadn’t made it 100% clear to the world that her Christian values would never allow her to consider such an action.

    The criminals progressives seem to be confusing Ms. O’Donnell with femi-nazis, whose sole objective in life seems to be the acquisition of the same kind of animalistic copulation “rights” as progressive men exercise with each other.

  2. I wonder if these Gawker cretins still wear their “Sarah Palin is a C*nt” T-shirts?

  3. GetBackJack says:

    Only one??? ONLY ONE???? Good grief, that DISQUALIFIES her from being a member of Congress.

  4. Mae says:

    Whoah! NOW standing up for a Conservative woman? How novel! Probably lose them some cash on that one.

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:

    The “angle” here, if you will, is the same old played out leftist agenda with self-hatred/guilt-shame. Truly, the ardent members of the left hate themselves either for being unattractive, too fat, too stupid, too this or too that so they automatically ASSUME that the ardent members of the right have similar, if not more extreme mental disorders. So they use name-calling, ad-hominem attacks and vitriol to auger out a reaction.

    They fail to understand that the vast majority on the right are there, in part, due to their own self-esteem, won through trials with failures and successes. A measured person knows they are flawed and can deal with it by capitalizing on their strengths. A failed person finds fault with others and can never overcome their own lack of self-worth and therefore must “equalize” everything from 5 year olds’ soccer games to outcome-based education to redistributing hard-working people’s money.

    But at the end of the day, they still have to look at themselves in the mirror and they truly do not like what they see. They still see that too fat, too stupid, too ugly…too HUMAN thing staring back at them and they hate it. But the most curious mechanism is —that rather than becoming introspective and working on themselves they instead project their anger and insecurity on everyone else and try to enforce the repair on THEM.

    When I was young, this sort of thing was considered unacceptable. As I grew older, it became more common for a group to point fingers at the one person who didn’t put up with it. It’s called a paradigm shift, I think and it has a lot to do with everyone becoming a victim and unable to perform or be successful due to outside forces. In the “good old days” one looked inwardly to understand failure and how to overcome it. Now, everyone seems to have an excuse and can blame others.

    After all, look at the boy who sits in the president’s chair. Very good at identifying fault in others but lacks the humility of a truly experienced human being.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »