She’s mad because Jezebel didn’t listen when she said, “No.” Shouldn’t be hard to understand.

This. THIS.

I guess I don’t get how you can play the “we’re doing real journalism” card when the NY Times busted the story wide-open with 5 sources in what, a few weeks since the Weinstein stuff broke? And you’ve supposedly had it for years?

That’s not what I said. Read what I said and come up with a more thoughtful response. You’re intentionally dumbing down my comments in order to make it sound like I’m just an idiot.

“Jezebel reported unfounded rumors. That those unfounded rumors turned out to be at least partly true doesn’t really change the fact that reporting unfounded rumors is incredibly irresponsible.”

I’m commenting on my own comment because I had more to say. Watch that clip. Has the root of the message being delivered by Kimmel changed? I STILL see headlines like this on jezebel. It really bothers me that this website would get sanctimonious toward their readers when they post some of the headlines that they do.…

Nobody is saying not to ask questions. The criticism is for going forward with publishing a story that is at the time admittedly without a shred of solid evidence. “Some people are saying that they’ve heard other people say Person X did this thing” is not reporting or journalism.

People have the right to tell their own stories when they are ready to tell them. Reporting those stories without their permission, reporting them as rumors or “open secrets” is unfair to the victims and can even undermine their story when/if they’re ready to tell it. It may actually cause harm to the victims. Why…

No, as I’ve said before, if there is a rumor they should have jumped in with both feet. They should have gone to female comics and male comics. They should have talked with workers at comedy clubs and festivals. They should have made the fact that some rumors have been disavowed by women while stating that the fact…

Yes, yes, I realize I mixed up my newspapers. My point stands, though.

Yeah, my bad. Too late to edit. My point stands, though.

You must have been overjoyed to find a reason to deflect my point. Congrats on being the left’s Fox News: partisan entertainment masquerading as “news.”

Oh, sick burn. Way to deflect the conversation. They teach you that in “journalism school?”

Maybe this very old clip will help you understand where some of the skepticism of your ethical standards originated. Jezebel (and Gawker) had legitimate journalism issues. And you know what? So does the NYTimes, WSJ, etc. You are held to higher standards and when you fail, you NEED to be called out on it. A lot of…

To all the people saying it was the Times, I think the original commenter may be thinking of the Roy Moore story that broke today too. In either case, the Post and the Times went and found people willing to go on the record. They did not send out an open request, or a plea, or whatever you want to call it, and that’s…

You don’t aspire to, ya know, do journalism?

I respect the effort that you put into this and am really impressed with you sticking to this. I often, publicly and online, noted that I was reserving judgment because I didn’t get it. I was wrong. Thank you.

I’m sorry. I like this site. But to be clear, you have been horrible to Kirkman (including linking to a rumor she specifically denied several times when writing about CK) and you did go about journalism the wrong way while the NYT did it the right way.

“straight up “when did you stop beating your wife” bullshit.” Bingo.

Here’s the simple fact: The Washington Post did journalism the right way, and Jezebel did not.