Taylor Lorenz is about to "expose" the private citizen behind some anonymous account on Twitter, and when people criticize her for it, she and her friends will claim Taylor is the Real Victim™ and anyone criticizing this type of "journalism" will be guilty of causing her trauma.
https://twitter.com/ChristinaPushaw/status/1516207818675785733
One more time: you have the absolute right to criticize -- harshly -- the work of anyone who publishes articles in the West's most powerful newspapers -- one owned by one of the world's richest men -- and don't let anyone guilt you or manipulate you into believing you don't.
Only the narcissists in corporate media could take someone who grew up in Greenwich wealth and Swiss boarding schools, who regularly harms the lives of ordinary citizens with their massive journalistic platform, and tell the public: *she's* the victim and can't be criticized. 
This is what Taylor does: to teenagers, to obscure women on the internet, now to this anonymous Twitter use. That's what arouses her.
But remember: the Real Victim™ is Taylor and her colleagues who publish articles in Jeff Bezos' newspaper. Coddle them.
But remember: the Real Victim™ is Taylor and her colleagues who publish articles in Jeff Bezos' newspaper. Coddle them.
https://twitter.com/ChristinaPushaw/status/1516215063723614210
This is the framework corporate journalists are trying to construct and force you to accept.
They can criticize, expose, bully, and destroy anyone they want: no limits. They're <whispered reverence> journalists.
You can't criticize how they use their power. That's "harassment."
They can criticize, expose, bully, and destroy anyone they want: no limits. They're <whispered reverence> journalists.
You can't criticize how they use their power. That's "harassment."
Fucking unbelievable: @TaylorLorenz, after sobbing on national TV 2 weeks ago, claiming she's the victim of "harassment," showed up at the house of the relatives of the citizen behind @libsoftiktok and badgered them, according to @libsoftiktok.
The bullies claim to be bullied.
The bullies claim to be bullied.
What's the new journalistic principle being applied? Is it now permissible for journalists to investigate and expose the real identity of any anonymous social media user? Or is it just permissible if the anonymous social media user has a certain kind of politics?
Kind of meant this as hyperbole in a reply but it's now clear that it's more literal than hyperbolic.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1516224754373611520
Journalism isn't about just exposing things for the sake of it.
It's about exposing matters in the public interest about *powerful institutions*: CIA/NSA, Wall St, oligarchs, politicians.
Using Jeff Bezos' money to expose private citizens for having bad politics is gross.
It's about exposing matters in the public interest about *powerful institutions*: CIA/NSA, Wall St, oligarchs, politicians.
Using Jeff Bezos' money to expose private citizens for having bad politics is gross.
One last attempt to clarify the rules:
Is it OK for people to show up tomorrow at Taylor's house and the homes of her relatives to ask questions about her?
I have a feeling that wouldn't be applauded, even though Taylor, unlike the Twitter user she "exposed," is a public figure
Is it OK for people to show up tomorrow at Taylor's house and the homes of her relatives to ask questions about her?
I have a feeling that wouldn't be applauded, even though Taylor, unlike the Twitter user she "exposed," is a public figure
I feel confident that if a Fox crew did to Taylor what Taylor did to this citizen - show up at the homes of her relatives to dig for dirt - a national media and mental health crisis would be declared.
That's because, again, this has nothing to do with journalism: just politics.
That's because, again, this has nothing to do with journalism: just politics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
