Absolutely shameless. The main reasons the Tortoise reported this were for clicks and because they wanted a gotcha against trans people and their supporters, who they assumed would defend the “ally” Gaiman. Because these people are cynical hypocrites they believe everyone is. - ThreadSky

tomewing.bsky.social • 28 days ago

Absolutely shameless. The main reasons the Tortoise reported this were for clicks and because they wanted a gotcha against trans people and their supporters, who they assumed would defend the “ally” Gaiman. Because these people are cynical hypocrites they believe everyone is.

Reposted from Melissa

Fuck the fuck off

Comments

rayburnmaarup.bsky.social•28 days ago

I am no fan of the Johnson family, but in that article she just says: I broke the story not in order to cancel NG, but because such allegations must be heard.
Which I agree with. And I am glad that we now know what we know about him.

obscuricom.bsky.social•28 days ago

I mean... that's not the impression I get from having read it. I am just baffled by the article because she says that it was "in the public interest" to report it & the victim who contacted her just wanted "accountability" but what did she expect to happen? That people would know & not do anything?

obscuricom.bsky.social•28 days ago

In the most charitable reading this is a click bait headline that plugs her podcast multiple times. However, how she words things, her admission her friends didn't want her to report it because he's a beloved figure, I think less charitably about her motives for writing this bizarre article.

obscuricom.bsky.social•28 days ago

I know journalism has been soiled for the past 20 years but I think it's especially bad practice to try to separate "cancellation" from holding someone accountable for their actions. What Gaiman did was so vile his career cancellation is him getting off easy, by rights he should be on trial.

obscuricom.bsky.social•28 days ago

I simply do not understand how you publicise that a famous person is a multiple rapist & not want him cancelled, or at least expect them to be cancelled. I especially don't know why she'd feel the need to write a column as if to reassure people she didn't intend it all to go this far.

rayburnmaarup.bsky.social•28 days ago

Absolutely agree on the trial thing.

rayburnmaarup.bsky.social•28 days ago

1. I read it as: I didn't want NG to be cancelled. Not: I wanted NG not to be cancelled.
2. Journalists don't usually get to write their own headlines.

obscuricom.bsky.social•28 days ago

1. Even if we say that's the intention that's not good either? If anybody should be cancelled it's serial rapists right?
2. True. But if someone foisted that headline on my work I'd scream at them to change it because phew that sets the context.

rayburnmaarup.bsky.social•28 days ago

1. I don't think it's a great article. I do think it's a stupid clickbaity headline. I imagine even RJ thinks NG should be cancelled, although she doesn't say yes or no to that.
2. "You'll never believe these 5 things journalists have to accept these days!"

obscuricom.bsky.social•28 days ago

1. I find it suspicious she doesn't say yes or no to that, I can only imagine she wants to pander to both lib feminists & the average Tory Standard reader, which is cowardly & not compatible with whistleblowing.
2. Headlines do get amended after backlash, I'd at least tweet disapproval.

neverella.bsky.social•27 days ago

also I would suggest, because they frequently defend and try to rehab and launder their faves back into favour and power despite absolutely awful allegations. we are not like them in more than one way.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply