Gawker Gay-Escort-Hired-by-Married-Executive Story Scandal: Same Reaction for Republican Target?

[Anonymous]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gawker-conde-nast-cfo-escort-809519

The high-ranking executive named in the story is the brother of Tim Geithner. Would the same amount of outrage over the publication of the post be there if the target was a republican or brother or a republican???

[Anonymous]

The amount of outrage is because he is married, looking for a gay escort, and half of the media is now gay. Don't think it's about republican or democrat.

[Anonymous]

It would be joyfully received were he republican bexUse he would an hypocrite to his party's stance against gay marriage.

This guy was just a hypocrite against his family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The amount of outrage is because he is married, looking for a gay escort, and half of the media is now gay. Don't think it's about republican or democrat.

No, the outrage is because he is a completely private individual who is of interest only because he has personal connections with someone famous that have nothing to do with the substance of the article, the source is of questionable reliability, and Gawker was basically abetting a blackmail scheme.

[Anonymous]

Can you be blackmailed if everything is out in the open?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of outrage is because he is married, looking for a gay escort, and half of the media is now gay. Don't think it's about republican or democrat.

No, the outrage is because he is a completely private individual who is of interest only because he has personal connections with someone famous that have nothing to do with the substance of the article, the source is of questionable reliability, and Gawker was basically abetting a blackmail scheme.

I agree with this. I was shocked when I saw the original article on Gawker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of outrage is because he is married, looking for a gay escort, and half of the media is now gay. Don't think it's about republican or democrat.

No, the outrage is because he is a completely private individual who is of interest only because he has personal connections with someone famous that have nothing to do with the substance of the article, the source is of questionable reliability, and Gawker was basically abetting a blackmail scheme.

+1. There seems to be an unwritten code of conduct that Gawker completely ignored with this story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gawker-conde-nast-cfo-escort-809519

The high-ranking executive named in the story is the brother of Tim Geithner. Would the same amount of outrage over the publication of the post be there if the target was a republican or brother or a republican???

Time Geithner's brother is not a politician. And he does not vote against gay rights.

[Anonymous]

This seems like a straw man, since we have no idea how Geithner's brother votes. Or do all families have identical politics now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of outrage is because he is married, looking for a gay escort, and half of the media is now gay. Don't think it's about republican or democrat.

No, the outrage is because he is a completely private individual who is of interest only because he has personal connections with someone famous that have nothing to do with the substance of the article, the source is of questionable reliability, and Gawker was basically abetting a blackmail scheme.

Correct. The politics of the individual don't really matter in this story, since the person--a private individual--was not in a position to affect legislation, pro or anti gay rights.

[Anonymous]

Does the exec donate money to, or publicly support anti-lgbt causes and organizations? If so, expose away.

On the one hand, I don't really have a major problem with exposing cheaters. But who knows, maybe he and his wife had some kind of agreement, so that's their private life. This seems like pure vengeance (on a relative), rather than some kind of ethical (hypocrisy) exposure.

[Anonymous]

OP here:
PP's seem focused on why the outrage (because he's a private citizen). The outrage is a given and the real question is what if this was the brother of a high profile republican politician who was the CEO of big corporation.

But instead of it being a NYC liberal media congolomerate, he was the CEO of an OK based oil and gas company???

Would the outrage still be there?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here:
PP's seem focused on why the outrage (because he's a private citizen). The outrage is a given and the real question is what if this was the brother of a high profile republican politician who was the CEO of big corporation.

But instead of it being a NYC liberal media congolomerate, he was the CEO of an OK based oil and gas company???

Would the outrage still be there?????

I don't think anyone would care, really, it's a corporate exec. Maybe if you're a Fortune 100 CEO it might make news, but no one is really going to be outraged unless it's a group whose existence is dedicated to restricting gay rights. (Witness Ted Haggard a few years back).

[Anonymous]

I hate these faux but what if this was [something sort of opposite what it is] scenarios, because there is no way to know.

The outrage of this story is that this is an outing of someone who is private, and it gives the blackmailing escort some sort of win.

If the person outed was some sort of semi-public figure who had ever said or done anything that indicated an anti-GLBT agenda, then, yeah, people would just shrug and say the hypocrite got what he deserved. We (society) don't out cheaters, as a general rule (because it's just not that interesting: ooh, rich man pays for sex on travel, groundbreaking). In this case, the gay angle is what supposedly makes it so titillating. And that - the giggle that's it's -gasp - gay cheating - is actually anti-gay rhetoric. Whew. Follow that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here:
PP's seem focused on why the outrage (because he's a private citizen). The outrage is a given and the real question is what if this was the brother of a high profile republican politician who was the CEO of big corporation.

But instead of it being a NYC liberal media congolomerate, he was the CEO of an OK based oil and gas company???

Would the outrage still be there?????

I think yes.
I think the only scenario in which people *might* not be outraged is if the "high profile politician brother" was virulently anti-gay. Being a member of the Republican party wouldn't be enough. It's not a simple red/blue issue (though is very obvious you would like to make it so, OP.)

I say *might* because even then, I think people would still be outraged. I imagine if I was unfortunate enough to have a close family member who was very publicly anti-gay, it would make it very, very, very difficult for me to feel comfortable coming out of the closet.
It's a huge invasion of privacy, period.