When Gawker Strikes

Last week, the proudly crass gossip website Gawker revealed that Christine T. O’Donnell had a one-night sleepover with a stranger three years ago, according to the anonymous stranger himself. Although in this instance the disclosure was particularly relevant given O’Donnell’s outspoken moral platform, information relevant to voters, including personal choices, ought to be shared regardless of the circumstances.

Given the ubiquity of the media and the insatiable curiosity for political and sexual scandal, stories like O’Donnell’s have become commonplace. However, while some journalists have criticized Gawker’s decision to distribute this particular story, the site deserves commendation, if only for allowing voters a fuller depiction of those vying to become their future representatives.

Considering that O’Donnell’s campaign for a Senate seat in Delaware has repeatedly accentuated the politician’s stringent personal moral code, scrutiny of her past personal actions is especially appropriate. O’Donnell has worn her strict standards on her sleeve, explicitly ascribing a moral authority to them. Since these standards are alienating to some, her consistency in abiding by them is important to discuss. Ultimately, her campaign has given voters little else of substance to evaluate her on beyond these values.

Despite the laudability of Gawker’s disclosure of O’Donnell’s sexual encounter, the timing—just a week before O’Donnell’s midterm election—was unfortunate. If Gawker held the story until the final week intentionally, then we express our disappointment in the site. If, on the other hand, the anonymous source waited to reveal the story in order to garner more attention, then he deserves condemnation. Revealing the encounter last week gave voters insufficient time for voters to process the event or question its validity before the election, suggesting that those responsible for the timing likely did not wish O’Donnell success as a candidate.

While use of an anonymous source may call into question a story’s credibility, journalists’ ability to cite individuals without revealing their identities is essential to the trade. Without such allowances, important stories like this may never have been revealed. In specific cases, anonymity allows relevant information to be shared that otherwise would never be disseminated.

Under fire from the New York Times, the National Organization for Women and, of course, the O’Donnell campaign, Gawker’s explanation for its decision to publish the piece was an admirable response. Its reasoning holds up, and despite the timing, Gawker’s disclosure proved to be useful in evaluating the Delaware candidates for senator.