I don’t often write single or even two-source articles, especially about events of a few weeks ago, but when a supposedly respectable newspaper takes opposition research and, without properly vetting it, dumps it into the middle of an election contest, it should offend all Kossacks. Especially when a woman’s sex life—with her husband—is the target of sewer politics, it should be responded to with support for the woman and opprobrium for the newspaper.
The candidate is Susanna Gibson, running for the Virginia House of Delegates. To summarize the truthful part of what the Post published, Susanna Gibson participated in sex acts with her husband on a site called Chaturbate. What was false in the article is that the Post claimed that she violated Terms of Service by doing so in exchange for tips for specific sex acts. Obviously nosing into someone’s sex life would be just dirty politics, not journalism. Apparently, the claim of a violation of Terms of Service was essential in order to breach that threshold.
Prem Thakker and Ryan Grim of The Intercept did the journalism the Post failed to do: they checked on whether Gibson had violated Terms of Service.
She had not. The Terms of Service are written to protect those who engage in sex acts, not to prohibit them from engaging in those acts voluntarily for money.
To be clear, I find Gibson’s choice to engage in sexual voyeurism—and get paid for it— bizarre. But it’s not my marriage. And, while I think it’s unwise for anyone in politics to have anything in their life or their past that could be used for oppo, we are all human beings, which means we all do things that other people consider weird. Nothing she has done reflects on her capacity to legislate.
The paper that used its considerable influence to help the Republican party in its quest to do really weird things like interfere in women’s control of their own reproduction is the Washington Post, and the reporter is Laura Vozella. I’m a lot more disgusted by the Post’s “journalism” than I am about the well-known fact that people engage in sex. And I would point out that anyone who watches a movie rated above PG is probably guilty of engaging in voyeurism, just not as the subject.
Since I canceled my subscription to the Post because their journalism was headed downhill, I accessed this through MSN, so probably you can, too.
You can protest this by writing to The Post or by contributing to Gibson. She has a difficult race, but if Democrats will rally to her—and perhaps shame the Post into admitting it was used— she may be able to pull it out.