Virginia House of Delegates candidate Susanna Gibson is the subject of a new WaPo story after allegedly doing cam work with her husband.
The Washington Post knows it's a crappy piece of journalism because they have disabled all commenting on this story.
The part of this story that drives me crazy is the anonymity granted to the operative. Oh, he doesn’t want to be drawn into the controversy? Then keep it to your damn self. The Post (and the whole Washington media complex) grants anonymity way too frequently, and this is an especially egregious example.
If I lived in Susanna Gibson's district this story would make me more likely to vote for her. At the very least this shows she was less uptight than the typical politician. I'm sure most politicians are into some pretty depraved shit but keep it hidden so they can keep the family-friendly label while shaming sex workers. Meanwhile if I had a subscription to WaPo it would be canceled. What a bunch of tabloid-ass crap.
I would love to see this story resulting in a combination of schadenfreude (GOP operative convicted of revenge porn) and freudenfreude (Susanna Gibson wins her election).
Ugh, thank you for your coverage! I cancelled my subscription to WaPo - this was the final straw.
I subscribe to WaPo as a Virginia resident, because they do a lot of reporting on my region, as well as reporting of broader interest. This article makes me think about cancelling my subscription. A lot. The journalist may have had to go through these awful contortions to please the higher-ups. But the product is shoddy and should have been considered unworthy to print.
Washington Post: "Oooh, do ya like to read about pretty ladies doin' sexy things? Because I can write that for ya, just send me some clicks, it's for a good cause..."
Washington Post Readers: "Hold on, we need to check the fine print on our subscription to see if this is a violation of the Terms of Service."
The Liberal Media strike again. I dread the inevitable obsession with Biden's age. It's only going to get worse. Who needs Fox when you the Post, the Times, and CNN?
All of the valid criticisms of the inconsistent journalism in this piece are valid - and they’re also dwarfed by the fact that the entire premise is a bad faith attempt to create a sex scandal.
Another noteworthy aspect through is that Virginia recently put into effect anti-porn VPN laws that block websites like Chaturbate unless a user inputs their government ID on the designated porn sites.
“The Party of Small Government” my ass.
Once you decide to do on camera sex work AND run for office, you should IMMEDIATELY decide how to explain yourself. “Maybe no one will notice” isn’t a strategy. This reeks of “Follow me around, you’ll be bored!” from a famous failed front-runner. In an election that we are constantly reminded is crucial, unforced errors like this are intolerable.
After 2016 the press did a national me culpa tour while soliciting subscriptions because Truth Dies In Darkness, etc. Since then as before they have let us down more often than not. And in the end it was always business as usual for them especially when it comes to politics. Cover the horse racing, ignore the real issues.
I do have to laugh at them being so bent out of shape about her possibly violating the TOS, as if this breach of acceptable protocol were the story. How unseemly!
I'm not aware of any revenge porn lawsuit going anywhere in the case where someone broadcasted their sex acts themselves. The reality of porn (that is well known in the biz) is that nearly everything is ripped and reposted elsewhere, and it's a constant issue for creators who get to spend a lot of time filing DMCA takedown requests with varying levels of success.
If Gibson didn't see this coming, *that* would be a disqualifying level of naivete in my opinion.
I find it interesting how the author of the story couldn't manage to use it to explain that this is literally how online sex work works in general, or basically show any knowledge whatsoever about anything involved. It's like they couldn't be arsed to find someone who had ever reported on sex work, nor could Vozella bother to ask anyone.
I can imagine the outrage on fox news... “she had sex! with her husband!” the horror. I really don’t understand why this sort of thing matters to people. Are they really outraged, or is it all fake outrage? Are they questioning her morals while also supporting the former president?
Sadly, this puritanical effluent, is typical of how far the WaPo has sunk, from normalizing the forced birthers (story about a "maternity ranch" in Texas that sounds like a human puppy mill) to the latest incarnation of "but her emails", they are trying to get the Orange-faced madman elected.
What was the saying, "only a live boy or a dead girl"? This story has neither.