Well, I Hope We’re Not Pinning Our Hopes on the Examiner to Save Media

So, poor Julia Hurley out east is being slut-shamed like it’s going out of style because… well, you know, basically because she’s a woman running for office and the easiest way to get rid of a woman running for office is to insinuate that she’s a slut. As we all remember from high school, being a “slut” is just being in some way on people’s radar as needing to be taken down a peg. You can be a slut without sleeping around. You can be a slut and be a virgin. Almost any behavior a woman has to, by virtue of living in this world, participate in can be turned around on her so that she’s a slut.

Hurley is a slut because she worked at Hooters and was a model. Yes, having a job or two can make you a slut.

Whatever. Some day the women on the Hill are going to get sick of this double standard–that the men can act like coming to Nashville is winning the “Act Like You’ve Never Even Heard of Morals” sweepstakes with very few repercussions while a woman can’t even fulfill the duties of her job without her morals being called into question. And when they start talking openly about who’s doing what, that shit will get home to wives and voters as fast as you can press send on an email.

Just by technological necessity, we’re living in the last days of “As long as I do it in Nashville, I can keep it a secret from everyone back home.”

But that’s not my point. David Oatney writes for The Examiner, which is supposed to be some kind of news outlet. He has the photos. And The Examiner won’t let him publish them.

In the comments of his post, “Examiner” says:

This is copyright infringement regardless of whether the owner complains or not. A crime is a crime even if you don’t get caught. (Also, it is against Examiner policies to use copyrighted pictured without permission.)

Wow. Have you ever read something so stupid in your life? This is supposed to be a news outlet. One of their writers has copies of the images at the center of a huge, albeit incredibly stupid, story. And they think posting them would be copyright infringment?

And these are the folks who are supposed to be coming up with a sustainable model for media?

This is exactly the type of circumstance the fair use exception was created for. This is a news story. The Examiner is purporting to be a media outlet of some type. And a writer they pay to write new-like items has photographs at the center of a state-wide story, photographs that the public has now been told are prurient and politically damaging. The public does have a fair-use right to see those photos (whether they have any business looking at those photos is another matter).

Is there not someone at The Examiner who can make a fair-use determination when one of their writers is sitting on the material at the heart of a state-wide story? Or are they so busy being the processed chicken nugget of media that they have no flexibility in their rules?

Sincerely, could there be any stupider a policy?

Don’t get me wrong. I’d have a hard time being convinced to cross the street to pee on Oatney if he were on fire. So, part of me is having a good laugh here. But he’s being wronged by The Examiner.

About these ads

12 thoughts on “Well, I Hope We’re Not Pinning Our Hopes on the Examiner to Save Media

  1. In addition to being a steaming pile of slut-shaming, mixing what Hurley has done for a living with talk of these photos the Examiner is foolishly not letting Oatney run means that we aren’t free to talk about what really needs to be talked about. The question we need to ask of every candidate for office, male or female.

    Is she really qualified to hold that office?

    I don’t know, it strikes me funny that, because of the slut-shaming tactics, women find ourselves keeping quiet(er) about whether or not an “image consultant” or a Hooters waitress or a model or what-have-you has relevant experience that can be applied to being an effective legislator. When the question of relative competence of men and women legislators comes up, then, that’s what we have.

    And speaking of double standards between male and female politicians, have you seen this website Sexual Congress? Most, if not all, of the women are attractive. The men, however …

  2. I was thinking about this in the other direction, because of Oatney’s previous post about how she should have understood that “controversial” pictures would make her unfit for office.

    I wonder what legal jobs men have that make them “unfit” you know?

    Seriously, considering how some of these bozos act up here, someone with a little experience removing hands from asses while staying sweet about it might come in handy. She could give seminars.

  3. I hadn’t seen that post – I don’t read Oatney. Had I read that, I too probably would have seen this all in a different light initially.

    Other than Scott Brown, can you think of a male model that hasn’t been laughed out of running? And he still caught hell almost thirty years after posing for Cosmo.

    I don’t know. I kind of find it funny that the controversial picture in question has her wearing a cowboy hat and her breasts bound by rope. A perfect visual metaphor? Quite possibly.

  4. Pingback: Here’s something you don’t see everyday : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

  5. Seriously, considering how some of these bozos act up here, someone with a little experience removing hands from asses while staying sweet about it might come in handy. She could give seminars.

    Damn, you read my mind.

  6. Examiner.com is no media outlet. I technically ‘write’ for them, though I quit a long time ago as they have absolutely no support staff unless you screw up. They don’t support their writers what so ever. They wouldn’t even answer my questions about income when I was working on my taxes. Bascially if you can type they ‘hire’ you. Though hiring you consists of giving you a password and a title. You’re still freelance so they can disavow you if you screw up.

    Best of all, for me anyhow, they have a policy on not paying you unless you write a certain number of stories in a month in order to encourage their business model of ‘high page clicks’. They get paid by the advertisers for high numbers of clicks so they won’t pay their writers unless they have a minimum number of articles published. So I have a fair number of old articles getting hits but I don’t get paid for them unless I hit my minimum. And I unofficially quit working for them last fall so it’s quite a build up.

    The only good thing I can say about them is that you can keep copyright on your own work. They don’t have any rules about reposting somewhere else.

  7. Incidentally, even if the comment says it is by ‘Examiner’ that doesn’t mean that it necessarily is. There was a troll going around posting criticisms of various examiners using the name ‘Examiner’ and we were all told it wasn’t staff.

    I wouldn’t be the least surprised if the Examiner staff even knows about the Oatney thing. It may very well be a determination he made on his own because the staff is pretty much death on any sort of copryright question when they do know about it.

  8. Holy cow, W., I am completely dumbfounded at the information you’ve presented here.

    If I could insert a picture of me right here, it would be me staring wide-eyed at the screen.

    Wow. What a horrible deal.

  9. Yeah, that’s why I ‘quit’ back in the fall. If I ever get around to writing again I’m going to hit my minimum, get paid, and officially quit. I’m curious to see if they pull down my stuff if I officially quit.

  10. As I mentioned elsewhere, if Scott Brown can pose nude for Cosmo and go on to win his Massachusetts Senate race then I don’t see why Julia Hurley can’t work for Hooters and have her picture taken with her pants off or whatever the deal was.

    And as for Examiner being a sucky deal for writers, that is exactly why I never link to them, not on Twitter and not on blogs. But what can a writer do these days, work for Demand Studios instead? Give me a break.

    Tired of the word factories .

  11. Pingback: SayUncle » Slut-shaming

  12. Pingback: Camouflage Ghillie Suit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s