Ed. Note: This posting requires heaving use of annoying quotes, italics, and bolding, because it’s so fucking ludicrous that anything less would imply I respect the source. My apologies for the heavy-handed grammar. This is what they have reduced us to doing.
This “story” (cough, right) on Gawker.com makes me quite angry.
Look at the photographs on the page, the “questionable embrace” that seems so dirty and wrong takes place in a fraction of a second. How do you know? Look at the water line.
These are bracketed photos, taken at high speed and in succession. The WHOLE “STORY” attached to these highly-inflammatory photos is:
“When I first saw these amorous images, I thought supermodel Stephanie Seymour had taken a young lover. But—surprise!—that is actually her 18-year-old son. How close is too close when it comes to mothers and sons?”
SERIOUSLY? If anyone’s ever had an overly-gushy mom who smothers them with affection, they know what it’s like to get big crushing hugs and endless interaction. It’s embarrassing. And sometimes it feels really awesome to be loved that much that they’re crushing you with a big embarrassing hug.
Does the “reporter”, and I use the term as loosely as I possibly can, cite even a single source that claims the family has inappropriate relations? No. Do they have any other “photographic evidence” of this possibly inappropriate relationship? No. Is there even a RUMOUR they’ve got a quote on? NO!
This isn’t just fun gossip.
It’s fucking slow news day and they’re saying, “Huh. Hug, or incest? You decide. Pass the salt?”
By even saying “I thought supermodel Stephanie Seymour had taken a young lover,” the reporter* is implying a family is engaging in incest. This is tarring the reputation and image of a KID.
Not a single source. Not even a source of “rumours”. Nothing! No evidence of anything, save for ONE embrace at the end of what looks like a good swim at the beach.
What the fuck are Gawker thinking? How is this even REMOTELY credible journalism?
Quick answer? It’s not.
It’s trash meant to create discussion and propel traffic. It’s NOTHING more.
Way to really lower the bar on credibility, Gawker.
This week, that takes a lot of fucking doing. Nicely done. Asshats.
*That’s Maureen O’Connor, for those keeping score at home.