web
counter

serial podcast / the walking dead / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel


How Salon.com Rewrote My Headline and Turned Me Into an Internet Troll

By Dustin Rowles | Think Pieces | April 25, 2014 | Comments ()


jaime-lannister-bright.jpg

A couple of days ago, I wrote a think piece that I headlined: Walter White, Jamie Lannister, and How We Morally Process Murder and Rape Differently. In my mind, this wasn’t a think piece about Game of Thrones per se (I enjoy the show passively, but I have not read the books, and there are plenty of others who write about Game of Thrones much better than I). It was designed — and whether or not this translated well onto the web page is up for debate — as a piece about how we treat violent and sexual crimes differently.

In other words, audiences are willing to forgive their anti-heroes their violent, drug-fueled, and murderous transgressions as long as they are not of a sexual nature. Hannibal is an excellent illustration of this: Most people who watch the show love Hannibal Lecter, think he’s smoldering and sexy, and in some ways, root for his character, despite the fact that Hannibal Lector is a cannibal who murders people and turns them into delicious meals. We overlook that because Hannibal is played by Mads Mikkelson and wears nice suits. But if he’d raped someone, then all bets are off.

The distinction I was trying to make between Jamie Lannister and other anti-heroes is that his was a moral crime that we could not overlook because most reasonably-minded people are incapable of overlooking sexual crimes. I am one of those people. I found the act to be reprehensible. I also understand that it’s particularly problematic because that character was in the midst of a redemptive arc, and the sexual crime made it far more difficult for the audience to accept his redemption.

I had seen many comments to the effect that the rape did not happen in the book, and if we are to allow ourselves to root for Jamie’s redemption, we would need to completely ignore the fact that Jamie Lannister raped his sister. Why? Because, as we have with Dexter, Boyd Crowder, Hannibal, and Walter White, we can forgive his other transgressions — murder, incest, general douchebaggery — but we cannot forgive rape.

That was the point I was attempting to drive home — how audiences make a distinction between violent crimes and sexual ones.

However, we have an arrangement with Salon of dubious value. They post select pieces of ours, and in exchange, we get a trickle of page views in return and some exposure. The other trade-off is that they reheadline our pieces. Headlines are meaningful. They turned my headline — Walter White, Jamie Lannister, and How We Morally Process Murder and Rape Differently — into this headline: Why the “Game of Thrones” rape scene caused fans to respond in the worst possible way. As of this writing, it’s the most read piece on Salon.

That’s quite a different take. Salon took a minor throwaway point that I was making about how we would HAVE to ignore the rape IN ORDER to accept his redemption, and turned it into a headline that suggested it was wrong for the Game of Thrones viewers to become outraged by the scene.

Now, when I saw that headline, I didn’t even realize it was my piece at first, and I was pissed before I’d even read it. I was like, “Who the fuck are you to tell me how I’m supposed to react to a television scene?” Then I saw my name, and I was like, ‘Wut?” I suspect a lot of people felt the same way, and that many of those people barely read the piece, misinterpreted it, and/or interpreted to fit the narrative that the headline had created in their minds, i.e., that the Internet shouldn’t have gotten outraged about a rape scene.

THAT WAS NOT WHAT I WAS SAYING.

The outrage was perfectly appropriate. I was merely suggesting that we do not express the same outrage over incest, drugs, or serial murder — even of a child. Why? Because, as I wrote in my piece, “Sexual crimes are just worse, that’s why.”

Jezebel naturally also picked it up, and took issue with my analysis of Game of Thrones, but again: The piece wasn’t meant to be about Game of Thrones. It was meant to be about the distinctions we make in our minds between sexual crimes and violent crimes, and I think that my headline at least made that a little more clear, while the Salon headline made it all about the Game of Thrones’ rape scene, which I wasn’t trying to deconstruct (Cindy did a nice job of that earlier this week). I stipulated in the piece that — for the purposes of this piece only — that there was no ambiguity about the scene (at the time, there was some question in the director of the episode’s mind about when and if consent was given). I think that those who had become outraged by the headline took that to suggest that outside of the context of that piece, then maybe I thought there was ambiguity. However, I was merely trying to suggest that the “did he or didn’t he” was not germane to my thesis, which had nothing to do with the particulars of the scene (of course, I thought he raped Cersei, and 98 percent of rational thinking people thought he did, but it was simply irrelevant to my thesis, which was — again — that when it comes to our anti-heroes, we appropriately treat rape differently than murder).

But that point, of course, was lost in the outrage that the headline alone had triggered.

Anyway, I felt compelled — because of the negative reaction the piece had generated over on Salon — to at least explain myself. I doubt that any of the people who become outraged by it are going to notice, or care, that I wrote a response piece, and Salon may in fact end our arrangement after this, not that I have any ill will against that site. I’m a publisher, and I understand the need to drum up page views by highlighting a particularly divisive point, even if it’s a small one, and not at all relevant to the thesis of the piece, and Salon has their own narrative that they’re trying to create on their site. I get it, and hey! Hundreds (more) people loathe me, and they got a shit ton of page views. Win win, right?




'The Other Woman' Is the Movie Where Jamie Lannister Sh*ts His Suit Pants | A Complete Guide to Ben Wyatt's Amazing Faces






Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.


Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not


  • AC Smith

    Unhhh, Dustin?
    A strong case can be made that rape IS a violent crime, not a "sexual crime".
    I get that isn't the primary thrust (sorry) of your thesis.
    But I wonder if your insistence on categorizing rape as a "sexual crime" while, say, incest is something different doesn't bespeak a failure to clearly grasp the dynamics of assault as an exercise in power play?
    Or am I overthinking this, in your opinion?

    _________
    edit to fix typo

  • Equinox

    “Sexual crimes are just worse, that’s why.”

    Are they really? Worse then child murder? Worse then the violent dismemberment of a person?

    It's this attitude that I find disturbing. There is no analysis that I can see that attempts to explain why.
    I suspect it stems from a western cultural attitude that places the individual at the center of their own universe. In such a culture, rape is worse then murder in a way because rape is a survivable crime. The victim must live with the consequences, where as only 'separate others' family and friends' bare the consequenes of murder, and they are one removed, off-screen so to speak.

  • Gunnut2600

    I cannot understand why you would agree to allow them to change your headlines. Not trying to pour salt into the wound...but seriously...you didn't think that something like this would happen?

  • Pippa_Laughingstock

    "Sexual crimes are just worse, that’s why." Really? I must disagree. I'd rather be raped than killed. If I had a child, I'd rather they be raped than killed-- I realize that gets so close to saying I'm OK with my kid being raped. What I'm saying is hope is still possible after sexual crimes-- and I say this as the victim of more than one. Frankly, the idea that rape is the worst thing ever and breaks you for life is a narrative I find extremely problematic. When I told my ex-boyfriend about my experience, he no longer was capable as seeing me as strong or resilient. We're weird about sex, our society. I think the idea that sex spoils women is a huge part of this rape-is-the-worst-thing-ever-- I'm not dismissing it as a crime, by the way. But there's this idea that you'll be psychologically broken for life, and that's just "sex ruins your special flower self" all over again. For me, and I was a very lucky victim in a number of respects, the aftermath of the sexual crimes themselves was much easier to deal with that other people's responses. I have this weird PTSD-proof brain, I've thought of donating it to science (because lucky as each individual circumstance was, there have been a LOT of circumstances, this is what happens to girls who travel the world, just like my mom said it would), but people's reactions and the general discussion of sexual crimes force a sort of de facto PTSD on me because people treat me as fragile or broken or think I have some special insight into the whole thing. Nope, I'm fine, actually! I didn't do anything wrong, no shame at all, and also no STDs. No problem trusting guys because all of my attackers but one were strangers. Thank you, magical brain. No thank you, overwrought handwringing about sex crimes. Seeing this attitude from guys is what seeing white guilt must be like for black people. You're overdoing it, and I'm no damsel.

  • litprof

    While I'm sympathetic to any writer's concerns over being misrepresented and misunderstood, it's also inevitable. Nothing you write will ever be interpreted exactly as you intended it.

    In this particular case, I'm a little surprised that you were surprised. What happened is not unique to Salon or even to internet journalism; editors have always re-written headlines. I used to know a bunch of people in print journalism. They were generally surprised when one of their suggested headlines actually made it into print. Was what Salon did particularly egregious? I've certainly heard worse.

    And if you think this is bad, be happy you're not a movie critic. What would your reaction be if you panned a film and then saw one mildly complimentary phrase (with an ellipsis and exclamation point added) excerpted and stuck in an advertisement or on a poster.

    Perhaps what is a consequence of internet journalism is that readers -- including readers who enjoy feeling outraged, which seems to be an increasing number of them -- are not reading as carefully or thoroughly as they once did. They follow a link, allow a headline to shape their expectations to an inordinate degree, and (studies show) rarely read anything all the way through to the end. Reading comprehension when reading online has also been proven to be substantially lower than when reading on the proverbial dead tree. Put all of these factors together, and your being turned into "an internet troll" -- in some people's minds -- is, again, inevitable. But Salon isn't the chief culprit here; readers and the nature of internet journalism are.

    Incidentally, I liked your column.

  • BobaFettish

    As a freelance writer myself, I have to agree. I've had editors change my headline, rearrange paragraphs, completely cut entire sections of the article, and do any other number of untowards things to what I turned into them. It sucks, but it is what it is. Hopefully you got paid and didn't just take the byline because they said "it will give you so much exposure".

  • Protoguy

    Still not on board with the whole "we can forgive his other transgressions — murder"...... "— but we cannot forgive rape."

    Still not sure why this is an ok place to be. I understand that it is, just not sure I agree.

  • Sciencegrrl Jones

    That sucks. I'm glad you got your point out there. I am making sure all my friends read this. Keep up the good fight! And thanks for the lesson on ever letting Salon reprint anything I write!

  • Matt Brown

    This was wonderful. I saw the headline and scanned the article, and thought, "Well, they fooled me again." It's nice to hear an author of a *perfectly thoughtful* piece come out and share in the outrage at the clickbaitiness of it all.

  • solafidex

    I think this comment made on the indiewire blog gave me the best perspective in the wake of THAT SCENE or any scene of misanthropy played out on TV...

    LS | APRIL 25, 2014 8:49 AMREPLY

    "that people are apparently just pretending to be upset about rape"
    Erm you're not upset about rape, you're upset about fictional rape, please don't act like not being upset about fictional rape is even remotely similar not being upset about real rape. You can be upset about real life beheadings but not freak out about Nedd Starks it's not rocket science.

  • malechai

    Jezebel naturally also picked it up, and took issue with my analysis of Game of Thrones, ...
    They did? I can't find it.

  • pajiba

    Neither can I. But I swear to God it was there 2 days ago.

  • yazikus

    I just snooped for it and couldn't see it either. Also, their search engine sucks. I'm sorry to see this happen to you. I was a reader of your old law blog, which linked towards many great feminist sites that I grew to love (I think that is how I found Pandagon). You are a great writer and I've always appreciated your reviews. I have to wonder though, did the Salon agreement happen around the time the site slogan was changed (you remember, good old Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People). It seemed there was a content shift with that change, but I wasn't sure what had happened...

  • malechai

    I hate unsolved mysteries. Seriously Robert Stack can suck it.

  • Palandt


    The misunderstanding is irrelevant because your clearly-stated thesis is worse. Treating rape differently than murder is not appropriate, it's absurd. You think sexually assaulting a person is worse than ending their life? At least in the former, they have the opportunity to heal and move on. Can you recover if you're the victim of murder? I would really, really like to know the reason you think rape is worse than murder, because I can't wrap my head around the insanity of your suggestion. This, by the way, is coming from a rape victim.

  • I'm confused. Where did Dustin say that rape was worse than murder? Because of this line? "Because sexual crimes are just worse, that’s why."

    If you read the original piece, Dustin wasn't saying that. It was part of this wrap up:

    "It’s not that I don’t get it, either. If Walter White or Boyd Crowder or Jax Teller or Francis Underwood had violently forced themselves upon someone sexually, it would’ve become impossible to root for those characters. That’s where the conflict comes with Jamie Lannister. It’s not the rape itself that is the problem — there have been other instances in Game of Thrones in which characters have been sexually abused, and in some cases, in far worse ways, but that hasn’t stopped us from watching the show. It’s the idea of losing Jamie Lannister as someone with whom we can root. That, we cannot abide!

    So, instead of accepting what it might mean for Jamie had he raped Cersei, we reject the act as a blunder on the part of the director, and in the episodes to come, we will probably retcon out of our minds and continue rooting for a murdering, child-killing, incestuous character. Why? Because sexual crimes are just worse, that’s why."

  • Palandt

    The final sentence seems pretty unambiguous to me. He even made it clearer in this article.

  • I think,maybe, you're misreading. His point is that people seem to be more upset about the fact that Jamie Lannister is a rapist than a murderer, and that he doesn't understand why.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    I think he DOES understand why, and agrees with the instinctive response, even if it doesn't hold up intellectually.

  • Palandt

    Maybe, hopefully he'll clear this up... but I'm asking myself the same question.

  • I happen to be personal friends with another widely-misrepresented internet writer, and this whole thing about wedge-issue headlines is starting to piss me off more and more. Editors are troll-baiting, plain and simple.

    It says so much when my friend writes an incredibly thoughtful piece, then has to sift through piles and piles of hostile comments which, nine times out of ten, were based on the headline alone. (the other one in ten, the title biased the reader's point of view on the entire article).

    Basically, I don't envy writers in this day and age, and I'm very sorry for that crap that Salon put you through.

  • Ricky, Bubbles & Julian

    Wow, so a media organization took one thing that was said and completely changed it to imply the meaning was totally opposite? Can't believe that would happen with our beloved media. Maybe dan rather is working at salon

  • Claire

    This is a classic case of how people can deliberately manipulate the context of someone else's work to suit their own agenda. Fuck Salon. They haven't been shit in years. They front like they are liberal and hip, but as another commentator said, they're just on the opposite end of Fox News.

    Fuck Jezebel as well. They are only feminist when it suits them to be and when they want to profit off women's insecurities, they do it shamelessly as this 2010 Slate article shows.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/...

  • foolsage

    Good article there; thanks for the link.

  • F'mal DeHyde

    Thanks for that link, I really appreciated this line:

    "They're ignited by writers who are pushing readers to feel what the
    writers claim is righteously indignant rage but which is actually just
    petty jealousy, cleverly marketed as feminism."

    I stopped reading at Jezebel and I had already avoided their comment section for my own mental health. The strident outrage over EVERYTHING has gone from annoying to exhausting. I see that same stridency here occasionally but I've learned to avoid those articles (and certain commenters). What is it about the internet that courts this kind of behavior? It's such a wonderful research tool but look at the way so many people use it.

  • BPD

    Boycott Salon

  • Ryan McLaughlin

    That's pretty messed up. I didn't completely agree with your previous article, but the headline Salon attached to it is garbage, and you have a right to be pissed. While I admit I'm typically fan of the anti-hero (Jaime included, even now) I don't really see a distinction between "violent" and "sexual" crimes. Invading someone's person is invading someone's person. But, that's just me.

    [Edit: Allow me to amend this: There's a difference, for sure, but "an evil act is an evil act" was the point I was getting at. The different psychological and emotional pain caused by say, maiming someone versus raping someone, is surely a distinction, but evil is evil, and Jaime is clearly evil.]

    Personally, I stopped reading Salon almost a year ago, because I got tired of their often misleading headlines (the fact they re-publish articles from other sites only makes me loathe them more, no offense to you or Pajiba, personally)

  • Why do they feel the need to re-title articles? If you have to re-title the article, maybe it shouldn't be on the website in the first place, as it's not the clickbait shit people want.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Retailing the articles makes sense for a content provider so that a search for one title doesn't yield multiple sites. This isn't an AP bulletin.

  • HerlindaRusso

    The Headline is so very interesting to explain in the Internet Troll by the Salon.com
    http://clearskinsite.net/

  • macaw17

    Wow - I read the piece and took it the way you meant it.

  • Uriah_Creep

    You know what the Latins used to say, Dustin: Illegitimi non carborundum.

    It's good advice.

  • emmalita

    Translation, por favor?

    (My Internet attempts gave me things like "do not rats" and "but not carbon." Both are good advice.)

  • 'Don't let the bastards grind you down.' It's not real Latin, which is why it's giving your translator fits.

  • emmalita

    Gracias.

  • Uriah_Creep

    It's the only "Latin" I remember. I actually took a few years of it back in the Dark Ages.

  • The only Latin I really have a handle on is church-related, so unless it's ecclesiastical I'm not all that ahead of you. The only reason I caught yours is that I remembered an interview I had seen with Terry Pratchett where he talked using 'made-up' Latin for various jokes and that was one of the examples he mentioned.

  • emmalita

    Ha! That is good advice. I'm thinking I need that on a t-shirt.

  • Uriah_Creep

    You're in luck, Emm. This is the Internet, so anything you can think of, you can usually get:

    Cafe Press

  • emmalita

    Thanks. I'm slightly embarrassed to have missed the Pratchett reference, but I'll survive.

  • rocky

    Welcome to the wonderful world of the sub-editor. These days they don't actually read, they just label shit.

  • Dumily

    Dustin, I've mentioned before that I only ever read the comments on Pajiba. Among other reasons, that's because I've never read "UR a homo", "Obama is a Muslim" or "RON PAUL 2012!" in your comment section. But it's also because even when I've disagreed with people in the comments (and I do so loudly and often), we've had an ongoing conversation rather than an insult, shouting match. I only remember one person that was so flat out offensive that I couldn't continue the conversation. And I think we might have even managed the toughest of internet feats, and reformed a troll. So regardless of what some asshats do to your work, remember that you created something that's almost impossible on the internet: a place where people have an actual discussion.

  • Uriah_Creep

    Well said, Rob Ford.

    (Do you have any crack I could score?)

  • Dumily

    It's 10pm on a Friday. The real question is: do I have any crack left?

  • Andrew J

    Salon is the worst

  • HelloLongBeach

    I've never been to Salon but Jezebel is garbage.

  • Lee

    I visit Salon occasionally and I've noticed that they sometimes post headlines to a piece that have very little to do with what is written (for headlines), and get called out on it in the comments section. They are shooting themselves in the foot, coz they lose credibility with anyone but idiots.

  • megaera

    Sorry you got media-ed. I thought that piece was interesting and well thought out. Just remember there are whole *dozens* of people who read your article for what it actually was!

  • Cowtools

    Refer this to Patton Oswalt. He'll take down Salon.com for you.

  • Dustin, why are you slumming? Lay down with dogs, wake up with Mothers Who Think.

    as much as I'm over the whole discussion, much better to be annoyed by it here, than anywhere else.

  • Bert_McGurt

    Gee Dustin, maybe you should have thought about that before you wrote such a drunk and scantily-dressed article? You know how those Salon editors are - they just can't help their baser instincts! You should do more to protect your articles, like keep them locked indoors after dark and you know, not put themselves in that situation.

    /extreme sarcasm

  • Miss Jane

    Salon is just one of many sites that have deteriorated in the last few years. I blame advertising. The internet model for setting ad rates is still based on the scarcity model of television. But the internet has no scarcity, so there is desperation for click bait.

  • Alberto Cox Délano

    I stopped reading Salon.com when I realized I wasn't going to let a bunch of lazy, big-mouthed, shallow people take any more of my time. You see, Salon.com style themselves to be The Guardian in the US, when they are a more poorly laid-out Buzzfeed (with more text). Is Fox News of the liberals, but at least Fox News don't pretend they are intelectual heavyweights.

  • Ryan Ambrose

    That reworked headline misses the entire point of your thoughtful article. It's damn near Upworthy-esque.

    It's this type sincere and respectful approach to your readers that makes me frequent Pajiba regularly. Don't let that affect you, Dustin.

  • janeite1900

    I just read you. Who cares about Salon and Jezebel. We know Dustin is too level-headed for that kind of silliness. Sorry it happened. Good explanation.

  • Tinkerville

    Just leave it to Salon and Jezebel to take something thought provoking and well-written and bastardize it for clickbait. I hope you take comfort in knowing that your loyal readers will take the time and effort to read your articles thoroughly and appreciate the work that you put into them.

  • blackheart

    I too am sorry to hear this happened to you.

    Your thoughtful, reflective, often heartbreakingly honest style is what keeps me returning to Pajiba after all these years.

    Funny thing this writing business, those who are outraged will shout and scream and stamp their feet, until you think that is all the people that exist in your audience. I imagine you would be surprised to know how much you actually inspire people with your work, because the happy ones are not feeling the need to grumble and shout. We just smile, nod and say, "Dustin knocked another one out of the park again."

    And because I am a stranger behind a screen I will just say this, write more and more and more about your childhood and how it translates into your version of manhood/fatherhood/husbandhood today. That is where your most electric, moving, amazing stuff comes from. I personally would buy your memoir from what I've read on this site alone.

    You are far better than you know.

  • phofascinating

    Yes yes 100% agreed! And this is why I just can't with Warming Glow anymore, they treat him like garbage over there and it just breaks my heart.

  • foolsage

    The community over there isn't all that appealing in general, from my point of view. It's much nicer here.

  • Dumily

    Kindly return your "blackheart" card immediately.

  • foolsage

    Full title and subtitle off Salon:

    ***

    Why the “Game of Thrones” rape scene caused fans to respond in the worst possible way

    After a gruesome depiction of sexual assault, fans refused to acknowledge it even happened. Here's why

    ***

    Fuck, that bears almost no resemblance to the article. Seems worth mentioning to your contact there, perhaps.

  • **I AM** NotTheOne

    I can't remember when I stopped reading Salon or Jezebel but I have no regrets.

  • Being in the same company as Patton Oswalt, the sacred keeper of the lanyards, isn't a bad place to be.

  • Jezzer

    I'm amazed Salon managed to find time away from licking Suey Park's butthole to be able to rewrite your headline.

  • Dumily

    #canceljezzer

  • JustOP

    Well, I guess I'm never heading over to Salon again. Also, I wouldn't care an ounce about anything Jezebel have to say given the site is an awful, monumental miasma of indiocy.

    The article in question was good, I'm glad you wrote it.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Because it didn't happen to me, I find it kind of funny. I also find it a testament to the power of headlines to color your expectations of what you will read and your perception of what you read. (assuming, of course, that people read)

    And it's ok to say you have ill will against them. I'm guessing you do since you say in your headline, which colors the way I read this piece, that they turned you into a troll.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Ok, reading other people's comments, I feel like I've been mean, which I probably have been. So let me be sincere, which is: I enjoy reading your writing, Dustin, even when I disagree with it. Smart people writing things I disagree with give me a chance to focus my own thoughts on a subject, and smart people writing things I agree with only get me to realize exactly WHY I think how I do. And you are smart people.

  • phofascinating

    "Smart people writing things I disagree with give me a chance to focus my own thoughts on a subject, and smart people writing things I agree with only get me to realize exactly WHY I think how I do."
    Thank you for putting into words EXACTLY why I come to Pajiba.

  • F'mal DeHyde

    I saw the salon article mentioned at another site I visited today with a brief quote that I knew looked familiar but the stupid title threw me off. It's like something on buzzfeed... "you'll never believe what this dog did, and you'll be AMAZED!"

    blerg

  • PDamian

    I remember Salon's early days with such fond nostalgia, back when David Talbot was in charge. It had about seven to eight years of fantastic political writing and thinking, and then it all went to hell in a "personal interest" handbasket. Haven't looked at the site in years.

  • pajiba

    And this is exactly why I agreed to the arrangement in the first place. I used to LOVE Salon, and had not read them in years, so when they came to me, I was flattered as hell, because I used to read the crap out of it (CINTRA WILSON was one of the people who inspired me to start this site).

  • fauxcault

    I started visiting Salon for Wilson and others, and I've stayed for Alex Pareene. His annual round-up of the worst figures in media is de rigueur in my book.

  • This is technically Salon-on-Salon crime.

  • foolsage

    Dustin, I am so disappointed in you. Why are you telling fans how to react? I thought you were better than that.

    Sorry, couldn't help it. Bad joke, I know.

    Having your work retitled as something completely different really sucks. I don't know what you can do about it, but it has to be deeply frustrating to have your words and attitudes misrepresented in this way. I think it has to be adding insult to injury to see a misrepresentation of your views become so popular. Ergh.

    Sorry man. We're here for you.

  • CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS. CLICKS.

  • Enrique del Castillo

    The only times I've heard or read Salon have been in this kind of situation when they pull crap like this, or the Patton Oswalt twitter fight. I understand that there are issues worth discussing in all media, but the clickbaity/controversial for controversy sakes attitude of such sites just angers me.

    Also...I may sound like an awful person, but isn't incest the lesser of Jaime's flaws?

  • I'm curious as to how Salon will rework this particular headline when they post it on their blog later.

  • Erin S

    "How Internet Commenters Overreacted to A Game of Thrones Article."

  • foolsage

    "Dustin Defends Rape Scene, Calls GoT Fans Idiots"

  • F'mal DeHyde

    hahaha!

  • BootlegGinger

    I've been reading you since 2005, well before I heard of Salon or Jezebel. I applaud your response. (though I think there is a very interesting conversation that could be had as to why [the collective] we do respond in such a way).
    don't let the bastards get you down, man. a lot of people comment on things without reading them, clickbaity bullshit.

  • "Salon has their own narrative that they’re trying to create on their site"

    Are you saying that Contrarian.com pushes a certain narrative? Well I NEVAH!

    Salon and Jezebel and Thought Catalog and their ilk can GTFO of the Internet forever as far as I'm concerned.

    http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/...

  • kirbyjay

    I am just loving this scene. I wonder how many takes there were. Do you think the Duke enjoyed it? Can that kid swim? I think it's my all time favorite John Wayne moment ( not a big fan) after
    " I oughta bust your jaw.....but I won't..........the hell I won't "

  • foolsage

    It's mesmerizing, isn't it? Apparently it's a scene from "Hondo". The kid (Lee Aaker) spoke about the experience later:

    'The scene Lee is most often asked about is where John Wayne, learning the boy can't swim, throws him into the water. "We were in a little town in Mexico called Camargo which is about 400 miles below the border of El Paso. I was nine years old and weighed about 50 pounds. Wayne picked me up like a top and flung me in the water. A lot of people remember that scene and I get asked quite a bit how John Wayne was to work with. He was a real wonderful guy."'

    http://books.google.com/books?...

  • John G.

    I was wondering about this. I've been seeing your posts show up on Salon lately, and didn't know if they were outright blog spamming or not.

  • stella

    What a shitty thing to do. Im sorry that happened.

  • opiejuankenopie

    Cool. Another reason to never visit Salon.

  • Jericho Smith

    I'm bald, so it doesn't affect me...

  • Blake Shrapnel

    Ba dum PSSH!

blog comments powered by Disqus