3. Chuck Johnson is a BLOGGER. Chuck Johnson is so not a journalist that he masturbates to fantasies of one day getting to sit at the journalists' table at News Thanksgiving.
SomebodyElseHere
somebodyelsehere
This guy is not a "reporter." He's maybe a "blogger." Really, though, he does his only "journalistic" work (which consists of smearing and throwing innuendos) on Twitter. Which has banned him three times I know of, and then let up a few hours or at most less than a day later. (I thank whatever guardian angels got me…
The author of that piece is called Princess Sparkle Pony. Joy.
It would be irresponsible not to cover things like this. It would be irresponsible to "jump on the bandwagon," too. But it's not irresponsible to call this out as completely unethical behavior and to rally in support of the victim.
After all, we cannot show our support for victims we haven't heard about. This woman…
Oh ffs. Sure. Here, via Google, is every MediaMatters tag for Charles C. Johnson, known fuckhead:
News sites, do not get to pick and choose the news.
There is nothing irresponsible about reporting something which is all over, well actually, the NEWS.
To not report it, as a deliberate choice, not because it's not important, but because you don't think people should know it, is the beginnings of some seriously scary…
That level of pure, unbridled hatred toward women is so fucking terrifying.
I was sexually assaulted many years ago, and didn't report it. Mainly due to the fact that it took me a few years before I was able to look myself in the eye and say "you were raped." When I did finally open up to a few people and share my story, I intentionally changed a few small details, probably unintentionally…
Yep. Which is why it's a pretty established rule not to print the names of victims, even if a journalist knows who they are. But this asshole blogger decided, for some reason, that he was ok with ruining peoples lives, even for unsubstantiated information. You know, if he did get it wrong, he could get sued for libel.…
Bahahaha, that is so fantastic! And that dude is such a douchenozzle. Definitely a blogger, for sure. (Almost typed "blooger", which looks a lot like "booger", and is also true.)
I think the reasoning behind reporting this is, as a progressive women's website, is to show what women are up against. These kinds of attacks are something we need to speak out about. Start a dialogue about how we prepare, strengthen, and protect ourselves from a society that seems to refuse to believe that victims…
I mean, just because you hadn't heard of him doesn't mean he's some nobody. He's a notorious self-promoting shithead.
All Rolling Stone did was ask the frat boys if they raped her and when they earnestly denied it, RS rolled over for a tummy rub like a good dog.
he already called the girl's dad. That poor family is probably battening down the hatches in preparation for an absolute shitstorm, whether or not Johnson "got" the right girl
The point is "Charles C. Johnson is a repulsive piece of shit"
I have to say, this is the first time I've had the basic tenets of their grievances listed so concisely, and how do you refute such a list? Its based in such a subjective "reality" that its hard to know where to even start. The conversation they're having is so different from the one we're having.
The remarkable thing, to me, about this is the continuing dystopian fantasy about "women's privileges" maintained by these nutcases and far too many who don't pull out the guns, but complain privately. If you quiz them about what these "privileges" are, they'll tell you:
- women expect and get free everything
- women…
If it's impossible to convince people of the righteousness of these views who don't already agree, then there is no hope of overcoming institutional racism, even slightly. Racists still win elections in most places, because the electorate is racist. I'm not that cynical, and I hope that upon reflection you are not…
I've responded to this elsewhere.
http://jezebel.com/ive-been-posti…