The Kicker — January 7, 2010 01:26 PM

“Walrus Oral Sex: Pleasures Self In Sex Act At Aquarium (VIDEO) (NSFW)”

By Megan Garber

• One Page
• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Digg Facebook Twitter Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

• One Page
• Print
• Report an Error
• Email
• Digg Facebook Twitter Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

Subscribe to the Columbia Journalism Review at our special Web rates.

Comments Post a Comment

I realize that this was a very quick post, but the subtext here is that a really weird, immature video that appeals to a streak of low-brow humur that nearly all of us have is inappropriate for a news site. And I think that subtext is unfortunate. What's the real downside to videos like this, situated amid more serious news? I fail to see it.

#1 Posted by Josh Young, social news editor at the Huffington Post, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 06:32 PM

Gene Weingarten (Washington Post) and Dave Barry have a running debate about who has the bigger oosik. You'll see what I mean:

http://blogs.herald.com/dave_barrys_blog/2008/04/gene-weingarten.html

#2 Posted by cab91, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 06:54 PM

Good point, Josh. You're right: there's nothing implicitly wrong with the video (though, um, the walrus in question--who's probably finalizing the details of his ACLU representation as I write this--might feel differently).

I'm all for a mix of stories, both serious and silly, on media sites (hence my willingness to write "Walrus Oral Sex" on the site of the Columbia Journalism Review). It's just that the walrus video is a particularly inane example of diversity. While there's nothing normatively problematic about it, it is the kind of video that, for better or for worse, is increasingly becoming associated with (sorry!) HuffPo. The subtext of the post, to my mind, wasn't the fact that the video was wholesale inappropriate; it was the fact that you didn't need to click the headline's link to know where it would lead.

#3 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 12:01 AM

But as a very plain logical matter, how could there be any problem with an association between inanity and the huffington post unless there's a problem with inanity? In other words, the mere fact of not needing to click to know where a link points simply cannot do the work you would ask of it.

Consider an example. Let's say the title of your post was something like "Annals of National Security: Why Iraq Is Doomed." I made up that title, but it's not hard to imagine the association your readers would conjure up when you ask them, "Guess who?" They'd think, "Oh, there's another awesome investigative piece by Sy Hersh. I'm so pumped!" They wouldn't need to click the headline's link to know where it would read. And that's not at all a bad thing. Instead, it's a good thing; that association is a positive one.

See what I mean?

#4 Posted by Josh Young, social news editor at the Huffington Post, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 10:43 AM

I'd like to expand this video title to include the economics of the international financial systems.

#5 Posted by kari-kari, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 11:09 AM

Reminds me of a joke I once heard: Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can.

#6 Posted by Theresa, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 12:04 PM

@Josh: I do see what you mean. But I'm not sure I agree. The association you suggest isn't a "plain logical matter," as you say -- because I'm not identifying as problematic the association between inanity and HuffPo. And I'm not saying that inanity mixed in with more serious news is normatively bad (and therefore not saying that the walrus video is normatively bad). As I mentioned in the previous comment, I'm all for the silly mixed in with the serious (and if you don't believe me, a brief scan of my recent blog posts will, for better or for worse, prove that affinity).

What the post was suggesting -- though putting it this way is vastly, and fairly ridiculously, aggrandizing its wee pair of words -- was the systemization of HuffPo's inclusion of inanity in its newsmix. The outlet has developed a loose grammar of sensationalism for its post titles: "Something Sensational! (VIDEO)," "Something Sensational! (NSFW)," etc. (See, for example, this and this.) And it has implemented it with more systemic discipline than other major outlets...to the point where, yes, “Walrus Oral Sex: Pleasures Self In Sex Act At Aquarium (VIDEO) (NSFW)” implicitly bears the HuffPo brand.

Though the walrus video is, sure, a particularly inane example, that systemization isn't necessarily a Bad Thing -- hey, since the title alerts readers to precisely what they're getting with their click, it's probably a Good Thing. But either way it's a Thing. That's what I was saying.

#7 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:03 PM

My favorite part about this story is the way it was tagged at HuffPo:

"Animal Oral Pleasure, Animal Oral Sex, Animals, Auto-Fellatio, Oral Sex, Walrus Auto-Fellatio, Walrus Blow Job, Walrus Fellatio, Walrus Gives Self Blow Job, Walrus Gives Self Oral Sex, Walrus Oral Pleasure, Walrus Oral Sex, Walrus Pleasures Self, Walrus Self Blow Job, Walrus Self-Fellatio, Walrus Sex Act, Walrus Sucks Self, Green News"

I guess a walrus giving itself oral sex does count as "Green News"...

#8 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:46 PM

@justin What, you saying it's not "Green News"?

#9 Posted by Josh Young, social news editor at the Huffington Post, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:04 PM

Post a Comment

• Name
• Email
• Remember personal info?
• Comments (You may use HTML tags for style. The system accepts comments of about
  600 words, based on a 4,000 character count.)
  
  
  Word Count: 0

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times. Reminder, comments longer than 4,000 characters will be truncated.