Self-proclaimed "Journalist" Gianna DeCarlo unlocks Twitter after 2 months - an overdue followup

What an excellent message that we would like to preserve for the consideration of your future employers.

What feels like almost an eternity ago, an article was written in a rag called City Paper.  Found within it, are a collection of words that disgrace journalistic ethics so terribly, that it makes Horse News seem like we should be eligible for a Pulitzer (for City Paper employees: That's like a Shorty Award for grown ups). It was written in the lead-up to BronyCon by a Baltimore Journalism student named Gianna DeCarlo.

When she was called-out for her laundry-list of well-documented biases and inaccuracies and overall shittiness, she did what every responsible future-journalist does, and locked her twitter, and hoped it would all just go away.

Well guess what, WE don't "go away".

Feel free to refresh your memory:

An anon on Tumblr informed us of the fact that she unlocked her twitter once more, so that we are now able to see, just what exactly she was saying about us "shitty and gross" fans, behind the twitter wall.

Remember everyone, this person is writing for a "legitimate" news outlet.

So, first we have her bragging about how she wrote this article, essentially as clickbait with no regard for balance or accuracy, and is treating bronies as a mealticket. 

If this is "the big time" then you have a very sad career ahead of you.

We aren't sure if she is saying that she loves brony penises, or likes calling bronies "dicks" as an insult. Either way.

Everything about this.

All of these taunts and comments would seem to only be good for one purpose; getting those who are upset, more upset, an act that is commonly referred to as "trolling". According to this writer "trolls feed off attention and the controversy their comments cause".

Wait, who wrote that?

Oh shit, Gianna Herself wrote that. Read the whole thing when you get a chance, but let's read an excerpt.

"Rational discussion and open conversation about the topics presented is encouraged and one of the goals of well-done journalism. But when this gets twisted into some sort of witchhunt, then it can overshadow the message your writing is trying to send.

So on the internet, you have to be careful, but be brave. Don’t censor yourself. Criticism is avoidable and some of it will help you grow and improve.

And don’t feed the trolls. They’re not worth your time. Flip your hair and walk away, you fabulous person."

Oh wow. 
Just wow.

Recently, she seems to have been on a self-depreciation streak, commenting on her low self esteem, her shitty newspaper, and her reliance on prescription medications.

That may have something to do with the fact she realized nearly a month later, that at least some of the many criticisms of her piece were in-fact justified. Like her usage of the word "queer".

So at the end of the day, what did she learn? Clearly nothing about ethics, or dealing with criticism, and most certainly nothing about hypocrisy. Naturally all of this will just be referred to as "harrassment" and "personal attacks" (see: hypocrisy), but that's okay. We have it on good authority that she is a part of the community, and that it's okay to be critical of a community you're a part of.

Wait who said that?

Oh, right.

Comments (18)

  1. She looks hot.

    8.5/10 may cum inside.

    1. Meh good enough to be a journalist, YOURE HIRED!

  2. > Well guess what, WE don't "go away".

    Three things you can count on in life: death, taxes, and Horse News. Please don't ever stop.

  3. Aggravating little cranks like this are seemingly everywhere nowadays on places like twitter and tumblr, including ones that don't realize that the "social justice warrior" term was created with the intent to point out faggots that take "social justice" issues way too seriously (see: keyboard warrior).

    So... glad to know that they're okay with being an intolerable, obnoxious, dumbass radical?
    It's really not something to be proud of. At all.

    Also, the one about her not being all "independent" is one part pathetic, and another part kinda sad.
    Pathetic being that it's now obvious that she is so low that she needs to shame others that rely on others just as she does. And sad being that, like a lot of the rest of these social justice wankers with an ego complex, she needs meds to function.

  4. So this is what journalism is nowadays. Just crazed tumblr fucks spewing nonsense for clickbait. It really saddens me to see even professional newspapers going this way. To write a purposely offensive article riddled with biases and stereotypes just to get more attention is just about the worst thing a writer can do. She should be ashamed of herself.

    And as far as the whole "people defending molestia need to get a life,"...I have a life. A real life, away from tumblr. I also have common sense and can see a blog for what it is, not what whiney self righteous 17 year old tumblr fucks say it is. Tumblr fucks that later admitted to having never read a single comic from said blog. With followers who did the same.

    Regardless, you should delete this article Horse News. You're just giving this waste of skin what it wants: attention.

    1. Remember the Maine.

    2. "I have a life," he defensively told strangers on the internet.

      Of course you do, anon. Of course you do.

    3. All journalism today is like this. The 24 hour cable news networks are all about this shit.

      Not that I'm defending her mind you. She should be ashamed of herself and the paper staff should be ashamed of her as well.

      As someone who was part of the "Coping with Disabilities through Pony", I'm saddened that she mentioned us in a good light. I don't want to be associated with her. I'd rather be with the rest of the fuckers that she can't stand.

  5. I will get fat with all this pop-corn, curse you HN & brony community !

  6. I don't know what's worse: bronyfags in general or feminazi otherkin "MLP TOTES NO GROSS BRONY".

    1. The latter.
      Definitely, definitely the latter.

  7. Hypocrisy is one of the easiest to understand phenomena, because it is based on what psychology calls "projection". When people have a self-made issue inside that they don't want to acknowledge and take responsibility for, they will instead blame outside forces for that issue. Since they are behaving as if something existed, it comes into existence through those actions of them. Also, along the lines of what C.G. Jung said, if you are semi-aware of such an internal issue, but deny it out of convenience, you are basically trying to suppress inner doubt, and that is what Jung said can lead to fanaticism.
    The fact that such a person can then openly talk about the underlying issues on Twitter just shows the degree of lack of internal awareness about cause and effect.
    Intellectual maturing means gradually taking more responsibility for your life, which is profoundly rooted in what I consider the purpose of this game of life: overcoming fears.

    1. Your idea of intellectual maturity seems to match very similarly to Erik Erikson's belief that "the self, once mature, is relatively stable". This has always seemed to be a very straightforward answer; a person will mature as they build up an independent identity and face personal issues. However, the newer generation has such a reliance on social media (as would be the case for Gianna here) that they hardly experience a time when they are alone. The younger generation is always within arm's reach of their parents or friends when they are faced with an issue, which means that they do not have to resort to self-reflection as past generations had. It is for this reason that Erikson could not view online personas or identities to be mature sources of a self, but rather juvenile. This may perhaps provide an explanation for why we see so many personas online that behave so hypocritically. To use your chain of thought, it is these developing identities on social media that still have "inner doubt", and therefore create projections lead to hypocrisy.

    2. That's an interesting line of thought. Although when pondering on that, I'd say that the idea of fears causing immarute behavior is so profound that it transcends trends like web-based social networks. Maybe even the opposite: Individual self-distinction can be a result of fear, especially since the egoic mind operates based on self-preservation, thus fear. Someone can have been very much immersed in social networks all their life, but if they derive comfort from it, they know they always have friends, are never alone. This, especially as an early influence, shapes personality towards more confidence and thus less fear, even when confronted with situations where you are alone and have to rely on yourself.

      It is a bit like the fact that profound spiritual wisdom sounds contradictory/paradox. The more you grew up surrounded by supportive people, the less you need their support.
      It is when having experienced lack of support in early years, where any influence has great impact on personality-building, that tips the personality towards fearful behavior, which erosed confidence and can lead to tendencies like projecting one's fears on the outside world, basically playing a blame game. It is a defense reaction, and the perceived need to defend oneself stems from a believe that other people are trying to harm you, that you cannot be happy without defending against those perceived threats.

      And generally, you can take the taiji as inspiration: Either extreme bears within itself the seed for its opposite. Even if there is a trend towards an extreme in society, it will increasingly cause crisis-like experiences that will urge people to turn around. So while times of turmoil can occur, no extreme is sustainable. Just as bodies in outer space strive towards spherical shape, life needs and seeks balance in order to sustain itself.

    3. I would argue that we derive a false sense of comfort from friends and family if our primary method of communication is through social media. Stemming from the concept that the medium has just as much impact as the message, the words on our screen are often devoid of the intimate interactions that we have through touch, eye contact, and vocal inflection. When we loose this crucial part of communication, we begin to feel disconnected from the meaning and empathy that are behind the interactions we are supposed to have when talking with friends or family. As people limit themselves to digital connection from a young age, they get caught up in the hyper stimulation of trying to communicate quickly and efficiently that they often miss the real value of communication.

      Of course, balance is a key here. Digital communication is great for catching up with people who would otherwise be physically inaccessible, but the only way to truly feel a sense of being loved and not alone is with a healthy balance of face-to-face interaction. Other than that, I liked the rest of your statements about the paradox of support, and the elastic effect of extremities.

    4. Never thought I would discover such insightful analysis and deep discussion on an article focused on community drama

    5. Some wish to alleviate crisis, and for that, one must study, learn and understand it. I care for humankind and its plight, that's why I tend to visit sites such as this.