DeProfundis 0 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 You get your news from Gawker... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo 3,968 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Well that's true, but you know what the author is getting at, right? And a lot of media outlets ran with this story, so are they all dumb?Most of them* are extremely dumb. Many others are malicious. Quite a few are both.But, when I say they're extremely dumb, and you say they thrive on gists, I think we're largely saying the same thing.* I should add that I mean, specifically, the ones passing on this story, not journalists in general. Although entertainment reporting/gossip is kind of a cesspool... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascetic 0 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Well, is time to close this sh.it and ban the OP Did you get a warning point for this? If not, you deserve one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Well that's true, but you know what the author is getting at, right? And a lot of media outlets ran with this story, so are they all dumb? The media thrives on gists. The public doesn't care about details, all they care about is that they heard Lady Gaga's little charity (which it is not) is a farce. Basically, yes. The old rules of fact checking, integrity and having certain professional standards has been thrown out the window in much of journalism today. Most media sites, including ones who previously took pride in printing the truth (after they had checked the facts) are now in a constant battle to get the most hits to their site. As long as someone prints the story first, they will jump on the story and print it again, without even considering the validity of the source or if the information is accurate. They don't care if the information is true or false, they just want the hits! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingAlanI 3 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I don't blame the OP for taking the Gawker article as-is. Celebrity charitable foundations often seem to act like what Gawker describes. Looking at the tax form in the vocative correction, all those numbers and what they mean did get kind of confusing. The foundation has saved a lot of what it took in. As for what it's spent, a decent amount has been spent on charitable activities. Gaga does have relatives on the board, but they're not paid directly, though I'm not sure if they benefit from the assorted expenses. And even when money is being spent on charitable activities, one can argue whether those activities are effective Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossMonsta 33 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I saw this on facebook. "How Charitable" was Gawkers tag line. What a ****ing smug, idiotic, douche-e..... I digress tho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyaKara 2,272 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Why do you keep this topic open? Everyone is still actively discussing it as long as there isn't a fight or something of that nature, there really is no point. Everyone is discussing the real numbers civilly, so might as well keep it going :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trending Now
New Threads
Trending Now
New Threads
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.